Am I the only one who doesn't agree with yesterdays strike?

[goodkate]

I'm baffled why everyone thinks it was OK to strike yesterday.

It's OK that public sector workers have a really good pension, can retire at 60, live until they are in their mid 80's and expect everyone else to work to pay for it. Thats hardly in the spirit of our "lets stick together in this looming nightmare". Comments and defences please.

'FactCheck doubled-checked it with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), who did some fresh number crunching and told us: ?In a nutshell, total public service pension expenditure as a share of GDP is forecast to remain broadly flat.?

The OBR?s maths shows it sliding gently from 1.77 per cent of GDP in 2010-11 to 1.76 per cent in 2015. There is a small rise in 2012-13, which the OBR puts down to GDP having a ?bumpy ride? over the next few years.

What?s more, the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) also told FactCheck that they do not expect the cost of public sector pensions to rise as a share of GDP.

Both the PAC and the NAO pointed FactCheck to a House of Commons report published last month. It found that the Government?s estimate of the cost of pensions ?has reduced substantially?.

The report said: ?The Treasury expects the cost of pension payments to retired civil servants, NHS staff and teachers to stabilise over the next 50 years at around 1 per cent of GDP.?

Why is it going down? ?Because of the changes made in 2007 and 2008″, the House of Commons? cross-party report concluded.'

blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-are-public-sector-pensions-unaffordable/7138

'

My son came in from work (private sector) and said they had been talking about the strike. I said "oh were they slagging off teachers?"
He said not a single person had disagreed with the strike or condemned teachers in RL I haven't heard a negative comment.

Depends how you define "going down" really doesn't it?

The Hutton Report makes a number of assumptions, some of which that the NUT are still opposing (such as the move to CPI from RPI).

I guess the problem I personally have with public sector pensions is that in order to make any sort of projections you have to make such massive assumptions. Ignore anything that might totally screw them up. Then cross your fingers...

Unfunded pension schemes were an utterly stupid idea. Unfortunately there's no easy get out from them now.

Oh, and I can link to biased analysis too -
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8611878/The-future-might-be-grey-but-is-that-good-reason-to-be-gloomy.html

I've not heard any negative comments at dds' school about the strike/s - at least, not from parents.

Eh? These are not 'assumptions' MrsM. This is data from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts committee.

The problem is that the Govt spins a line about 'unaffordability' when there's no evidence for this and exploits jealousies and conflicts between the public and state sectors and people out of blind trust or ignorance fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Why are these same people not questioning the 'affordability' of the trillion pounds spent to shore up the banks or the 3 million a week to bomb Libya. Why is the 'affordability' of MPs' own pension schemes not being questioned?

The Govertnment CHOOSES what to afford.

You've got to wonder about the sort of society we're in where people resent teachers who after a lifetime of public service retire on an average pension of £10,000 a year but don't seem to care that David Cameron spent £680,000 of taxpayers money doing up Downing Street www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/27/david-cameron-taxpayers-home-improvements

Have you not noticed that this Govt is targetting the vulnerable and even those on middle incomes while doing nothing to curb the privileges of themselves and their elite friends?

And you've got to wonder what the Plan B is for those people whose pensions are not going to allow them to live independently in their retirement. It's going to end up costing the Govt considerably more to look after old people in state care homes or hospitals or to have their families give up work to care for them because they can't afford to look after themselves.

People don't just disappear once they retire although Cameron and his cronies might wish they would.

Do you actually believe it is possible for any financial projection to not include any assumptions? For example, how can you say with confidence what percentage of GDP is being spent on pensions in 50 years' time when you don't actually know what GDP will even be by then?

One of the most significant assumptions used in the calculations was that the public sector workforce would increase at half the rate of the population in the next 50 years. Another assumption is that certain reforms are made - and it is disingenuous to suggest that the unions have already agreed to these as they haven't.

But as I've said before, it's the uncertainty that's the big issue. If any of the assumptions turns out to be wide of the mark (which unfortunately they so easily could be), any shortfall could be massive and will have to be met by the taxpayer. Tomorrow's taxpayer. And don't forget that they won't all be greedy bankers. Some of them will be teachers too.

Well at least some people didn't support the strike.

I stick by my guns. My view is a long term economical one that I first understood was a major issue about 15 years ago, in the long term public sector pensions are simply unaffordable, especially as public sector work grew significantly under the labour government, so whilst numbers may be falling now. By the way just because you don't support the strike, doesn't mean you read the DM and are reactionary.

Plus I wish everyone would stop laying all the blame at the bankers feet, thats a rather blinkered view now. The governments that bailed out the banks are also to blame because they simply spent too much money and relied heavily on the banking sector during the boom period.

The looming nightmare is the increase in the number of people, who are currently working, that are going to retire over the next 20 years, many of which will rely heavily on the state and with less people working to fund it. If we don't do something about it now, we are creating another crises down the line. Even Polly Toynbee agrees with that one!

Perhaps your views about the long term economic situation regarding the TPS need to be updated in light of the changes that took place in 2007

MrsM. Please look again at the DATA much of which has come out of the Govt's own offices. Of course things might change in 50 years. We might all be wiped out in 50 years BUT there is no EVIDENCE to suggest that the teachers' pension scheme is 'unaffordable' and if and when it does become so teachers would be willing to look at changes (which they already have agreed to).

People need money to live in their retirement and teachers currently retire on an average of £10,000 a year.

The cost to the state of supporting people who are retired living in abject poverty would be much, much greater.

By the way I have no problems at all with some of my taxes being used to pay for a reasonable pension for those who have devoted their lives to public service. It amazes me that anyone would object to this quite frankly.

What does annoy me is the way my taxes have been used to shore up the banks to the tune of a trillion pounds and the way 3 million of my taxes is used each week to bomb Libya. And £650,000 is used to refurbish Downing Street.

Why don't you and others feel strongly about this use of tax payers money? Why are there no threads about this?

Once again I can only wonder at the sort of society we're in where we resent ensuring our public sector workers have a pension of £10,000 a year (and it's significantly less for most public sector workers) but don't seem to mind what the Govt DOES spend its money on.

Why is nobody jumping up and down about MPs' pensions???

Maybe the lack of threads here about govt spending on warfare has something to do with this being the "education" section?

Of course people need money to retire, but it isn't just teachers. Everyone who works contributes in one way or another to society and trying to make out that you are more deserving and worthy rather sticks in the craw.

I think a lot of people are jumping up and down about MPs pensions, aren't they? I anticipate that they will be reformed at some point too. But if you value "Public Service" so highly, it seems odd that you are so quick to dismiss people devoting their lives to running the country. I certainly wouldn't want to do their job.

The only reason that we are talking about teachers pensions is because by calling a strike the subject has been brought into the public arena. That was presumably the purpose of striking, wasn't it? Did you really think everyone would just agree with you all without debate?

But I haven't seen much concern about those spending issues ANYWHERE. I do think it's a very poor reflection of society that certain people get so worked up about giving a very modest pension to a section of society who really deserve it.

Likewise I don't see anyone jumping up and down about MPs' pensions anywhere.

Just think about it for a minute. Cameron thinks it's ok to spend £680,000 of public money on refurbishing Downing Street. He and his mates and other people in privileged positions don't experience any of the cuts but the most vulnerable do. How is this right and fair?

And yet the Govt manages to encourage ordinary working people to turn on each other instead of protesting about the Govt policeis and choices.

Nobody is saying that other people don't need pensions too. I'm quite sure that the unions supporting decent pensions for teachers are also in favour of decent pensions for everyone. This was Christine Blower's position on Question Time.

Can't you see that the Govt is exploiting jealousies and divisions so that there is 'a race to the bottom' when what we should all be doing is saying that everyone deserves a decent pension in their old age.

It's also another example of women, children and the vulnerable being disproprortionately affected by the spending cuts when, of course, they were in no way to blame for causing the recession in the first place.

I agree OP.

Selfish greedy self-absorbed self-serving ungrateful are just some choice words I would use for anyone who striked on Thurs.

I have met one pe rson who expressed considerable venom at the teachers strike. She was a teacher at my school. It was just before the end of term and she hit out at all the teachers there for striking. Now you will recall none of us were striking. In fact most of us were not even in school and we are independent sector anyway - who have different conditions. There are some in the TPS. Not many.

What struck em though was her total ignorance and inability to understand how pensions worked . She simply had a problem because she was a self employed peripepetic ( drama of somekind I think - or music).
Now that isnt mine or any other teachers fault. Indeed I am part time, hourly paid and I have been ripped off with two pensions ( one private, one as a result of changes a few years ago in the "public" sector which was privatised) I have also been ripped off because I was forced to retire early and my pension has been severely affected as a result. But I do not bear any grudge to others .

However, this woman could not understand how the TPS worked. She thought and still thinks despite my attempts to explain and show her how the maths work ( OK I must be a crap maths teacher) . I suspect she didnt WANT to know.
She has it in her head that ALL teachers can retire at 50 on a full half salary pension . She hates all teachers for being able to do that whilst she is self empled and has no pension or any means of paying into one. I suspect the public perception of most is much the same.

Maybe it will concentrate a few peoples minds if I tell the whole truth about that " gold plated" public sector pension I have?

Well I am 58 years old. I was forced to retire. I am paid an actuarily reduced pension and it amounts to £179 a week. I have worked for 38 years for that. OK so you can all be jealous that you dont get that - but its hardly a fortune is it? Its about minimum wage in fact.

I also work and I get paid around the same abount for my current part time job. Without it I would be keeping my family at just above the poverty line and we are not entited to any benefits of any kind.

My private pension from a pension pot run by Albany Life was whittled away to nothing and when I managed to retrive it at 50 ( the earliest I could) It had been reduced from a 30K pot to £500 . That is a private sector rip off for you.

I should also add just in case anyone doesnt realize, I am a tax payer on that pension so I am a gross payer in to the system. My wages are paid by the private sector and I pay tax on that too as well as NI just like everyone else.

Ignorant of basic grammar are the words I would use for anyone who said teachers striked on Thurs

Must've been the appalling state education I had!

I'd sue you obviously learnt very little

You wouldn't BELIEVE what I do for a job hahaha

Editor of the Daily Mail?

And anyway, shouldn't that be I'd sue; you obviously learnt very little.

Secretary of State for Education?