Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

to say this to all the teachers who are striking next week

999 replies

Memoo · 24/11/2011 14:18

As a parent I am 100 % behind you.

I really appreciate that you put your life and soul into your job and im sorry more people don't get just how hard you work for the benefit of our children.

Don't let the bastards grind you down!

OP posts:
thinksdifferently · 26/11/2011 20:47

Anybody else missing the irony of teacher striking for pensions the children they love to teach will be paying for?

thinksdifferently · 26/11/2011 20:49

loving not missing

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 20:57

Okay new tack:

Anatole Kaletsky (born June 1, 1952) is a journalist and economist based in the United Kingdom. He is Editor-at-Large and Principal Economic Commentator of The Times, where he writes a thrice-fortnightly column on economics, politics and financial markets. Has writen:

"Why, for example, are governments everywhere running out of money, not just in Britain and Greece, but also in America, Germany, Japan and France? Why are taxes relentlessly rising in all advanced capitalist countries? And why is public spending being cut on schools, universities, science, defence, culture, environment and transport, while spending on health and pensions continues to rise?
The populist answer to these questions is that we are all about to pay for the greed of the bankers. But this is not true. According to IMF calculations, the credit crunch, bank bailouts and recession only account for 14 per cent of the expected increase in Britain?s public debt burden. The remaining 86 per cent of the long-term fiscal pressure is caused by the growth of public spending on health, pensions and long-term care. The credit crunch and recession did not create the present pressures on public borrowing and spending. They merely brought forward an age-related fiscal crisis that would have become inevitable, as by 2020 the majority of the baby-boomers will be retired.
The rational solution to this fiscal crisis would be for governments to reduce their spending on pensions, health and longterm care. Yet these are precisely the ?entitlements? protected and ring-fenced by politicians, not just in Britain but also in America and many European countries, even as other government programmes are ruthlessly cut.
The politics of the next decade will be dominated by a battle over public spending and taxes between the generations. Young people will realise that different categories of public spending are in direct conflict ? if they want more spending on schools, universities and environmental improvements they must vote for cuts in health and pensions.
Schools and universities are more important for a society?s future than pensions. Yet every democracy around the world has made the opposite judgment. While many politicians claim to be obsessed with education ? recall Tony Blair?s three priorities were ?education, education and education? ? in reality they support health and pensions to the point of national bankruptcy, while squeezing universities. The same applies to the many fiscal benefits heaped on pensioners over the years. Is it, for example, better for society to offer free bus travel to wealthy 80-year olds rather than students or impoverished youngsters looking for their first job?
Why are such conflicts of interest between old and young never debated? Partly because of the myth that pensioners are ?entitled? to their many benefits because they have ?paid their dues? through national insurance and taxes. This is simply untrue. The true value of the average baby-boomer?s benefits is 118 per cent of the taxes they paid, according to Mr Willetts ? and higher according to other calculations."

It's an interesting take on certain things.

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 20:59

later he also adds:
"Will politics therefore degenerate into a conflict between the dwindling number of voters with children, who care about education and the future, and the massive power of pensioners with shorter time horizons? "

BoneyBackJefferson · 26/11/2011 21:03

iggly2

"We need to show we can do the maths,"

thats the point, no-one has shown the maths just random figures.

BoneyBackJefferson · 26/11/2011 21:12

www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/m/9/Teachers'_Side_Submission_to_Hutton_Commission_FINAL.pdf

"we note that the National Health Service Pension Scheme ran a ?surplus? of £2.11bn in 2008‐2009."

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:22

Part from the report I will I guess have to just use up lots of posts copying bits:

There are six key problems with the present unfunded public sector pension arrangements. Some of these
problems relate directly to increased costs. Other problems, though, relate to the way in which costs are
accounted for ? costs are hidden therefore obstructing rational decision making. The six key problems we
have identified are:
Lack of transparency. Firstly, the Government uses an artificial discount rate to report unfunded
liabilities, based on AA-rated corporate bonds, rather than a more pertinent discount rate based on
index-linked gilts (inflation-linked securities issued by the Government to finance its borrowing). Since
the Government?s chosen discount rate is higher, it has the effect of lowering the value of the
outstanding liabilities. Secondly, public sector employers and employees are not charged the full
current service costs of the liabilities the pension schemes are taking on each year: a completely
different discount rate chosen by the Government is used to compute these. This also means that
employees undervalue the benefit of a public sector pension. According to government numbers, the
main unfunded schemes have combined employee and employer contribution rates of around 20 per
cent of salary. The true value of such schemes, when measured using a discount rate based on the
current yields (0.8 per cent) on index-linked gilts, is over 40 per cent of salary. Even when measured by
discounting according to a long-term real gilt return of 2 per cent in line with economic growth at that
level, the true value comes out at almost 30 per cent of salary.
Large unfunded liabilities. The unfunded public sector pension liabilities are estimated at between £770
billion (HM Treasury ? 31 March 2008, the latest published figure) and £1,176 billion (Towers Watson). We
believe the true figure to be much closer to the larger estimate. While these liabilities will not need to be
Pensions have to
be provided to
more people for
a greater
number of years
than originally
intended.
The report of the Public Sector Pensions Commission | 9
paid off in one year, they are equivalent to or higher than the £777 billion national debt in 2009-10.
Large annual costs. The annual costs of public sector pensions to taxpayers are already very large. In
2010-11, the Commission estimates that using the Government?s methods of computation they will
reach £18 billion, comprising £13.5 billion of employer contributions and £4.5 billion of Treasury top-up
to meet payments to retirees (see Appendix B for the full calculation and methodology). However, this
is not a proper measure of the true costs. Properly measured, the current service cost of public sector
pensions is actually over £35 billion a year. It is this figure that the Treasury should be charging to
public sector employees and employers, even though this may mean the Treasury has funds left over
after paying today?s pensioners. In other words, government cash flow need not change but the costs
of employment would be properly recognised.
Disparity with the private sector. In 2008, 94 per cent of public sector employees were members of
a defined benefit pension scheme, compared with just 11 per cent in the private sector. In all public
sector schemes except for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), the normal pension age
for existing members is still 60 or below, compared with a state pension age of 65 and a normal
pension age of 65 for most members of private sector occupational schemes.
Inequity within schemes. There is a great deal of inequity between employees within final salary
schemes. Older employees, those who stay within the public sector and those with higher earnings
growth benefit far more than lower paid and younger employees.
Outsourcing of government services. When public services are outsourced to private contractors,
private employers have to offer pension benefits to employees to match the public sector. But private
companies have to pay the real cost of the pension promises, not the artificially low cost charged to
public sector employers. There is not a level playing field and this distorts outsourcing processes to
the detriment of private companies.

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:24

It may have been previously right to argue that generous pensions in the public sector made up for
lower pay, meaning that the overall package was a fair deal. But pay in the public sector is now
higher than in the private sector at almost all levels. Even after adjusting for factors such as levels
of qualifications, public sector employees are still slightly better paid than their private sector
counterparts, with larger disparities outside of London and the South East. The oft-quoted
argument for more generous pensions as a compensation for less generous pay does not any
longer hold true. The question of why the majority of the workforce should be expected to pay
through their taxes to support pensions that they cannot afford for themselves has to be raised.

BoneyBackJefferson · 26/11/2011 21:30

you can copy and paste all day but so far i have found

the report that I linked
other reports stating the same.
newspapers stating that the NHS scheme and the TPS have been in surplus for several years anywhere from 2.11 billion +.
various union and socialist websites that back the public sector.

the only way to find out the truth is by the government being transparent and producing their figures.

I don't hold out much hope

ShellyBoobs · 26/11/2011 21:31

we note that the National Health Service Pension Scheme ran a ?surplus? of £2.11bn ...

We'd be in an even bigger hole if there wasn't a surplus at the moment. The pot is only funding pensions for a fraction of the number of people who will be able to take a pension from it in years to come.

Is it really so difficult to understand that the surplus isn't enough to fund future pensions? You only have to look at the current money in the pot, the contributions being made and number of people who will take their pensions from it in the future to know it's not enough.

Typically, the unions have hung their coats firmly on the 'surplus' peg as if it means the pot is awash with spare cash. Confused

BoneyBackJefferson · 26/11/2011 21:31

iggly2

I'd love to see your sources for your last post

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:32

Paying a fair share of costs
As a rough average, the current new entrant scales for the main public sector schemes are worth over 40
per cent of salary, but public sector employees and employers are only charged around 20 per cent of salary.
If some form of DB scheme is maintained, it would be best to enact a combination of reforms. For example:
A final salary benefit of 1/90 of earnings for each year of service payable from the age of 70 would be
worth 20 per cent of salary to the employee on top of payment of contributions at 6.5 per cent to the
NHS scheme.
An RPI-linked career average benefit of 1/80 of earnings for each year of service payable from the age
of 65 would also be worth 20 per cent of salary to the employee in the Civil Service scheme after
payment of employee contributions.
An RPI-linked career average benefit of 1/70 of earnings for each year of service payable to teachers
from the age of 65, with pensionable earnings limited to £75,000 per annum and pension increases
linked to RPI only up to 2.5 per cent per annum would be worth around 20 per cent of salary in
excess of employee contributions.
The above examples show that there are a number of ways that the value to the employee of a
public sector pension might be reduced to the 20 per cent that is currently contributed by
employees and employers.

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:32

Oh and the above post remember the "employer" is the state as well!

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:33

THE REPORT

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:35

THE REPORT STATE HOW WRONG PREVIOUS WERE THAT WORKED ON STUPIDLY HIGH ASSUMPTIONS OF INTEREST FOR PAYMENTS INTO THE SCHEME AND THAT IT ASSUMED EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER COSTS WERE 20%. THEY ARE NOW THOUGHT TO BE NEARER 40%

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:35

ps this time I meant capslock

HalleysWaitress · 26/11/2011 21:36

i work in the public sector. thank you to all the teachers etc - i appreciate and support you.

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:37

If I were the government I would shine large chunks of the report on to the Houses of Parliment

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:41

Public sector pension costs are under-accounted for perhaps by as much as half of their total cost. It is
essential that this position ends as we indicate above. As such, even if the true underlying cost of providing
public sector pensions were reduced by about 50 per cent, there would be no cuts to headline public spending
and borrowing. The Government has to make radical reforms even to give the impression of standing still.
Honesty in reporting public sector pension costs is essential, however. And it should also be noted that any
scaling back of benefit costs will ultimately improve the Government?s underlying budgetary position ? it is just
that the underlying budgetary position is currently obscured by various accounting sleights of hand.

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:42

Oh and that still allows for a very healthy employer contribution.

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:45

Interestingly the report makes lots of comments on the need for transparency as the employees do not know the true value of their pensions...

"Our argument for transparency feeds into this: how can we expect to be getting the best value for money out
of pensions if we are not communicating to public sector employees their true value? Equivalently we can?t
expect public sector employers to make the right decisions without knowing the true cost."

iggly2 · 26/11/2011 21:47

I reiterate that I have not criticised any public sector workers. My DH is public sector (NOT striking). I think a strike can be for conditions of work etc (a redundancy or unfilled post to far). But in my mind not for an unaffordable pension scheme.