Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:

kwackers wrote:.... a promise is only any good if there's something to back it up with.

And I'm sure that an honourable chap like you will keep the promises made on your behalf to me.

The promise of an index linked, final salary pension was made to you by your employer, and that employer is the government.

I'm sure you are aware of various governments failing to keep their promises over the years.

I'm also sure you are aware that government promises are made by enacting laws, and that laws can be by changed the government at at any time, so making new, more modern promises.

Only someone very unworldly and gullible would expect the government to keep its promises for all time.

Are you unworldly and gullible Thirdcrank?

blackbike wrote: ... Are you unworldly and gullible Thirdcrank?

Not at all. If you check a bit further up the thread you will see I made reference to anybody with a pension having to trust politicians, insurance companies, or the boards of successor companies. I know that politians are amongst the most untrustworthy people on the planet. OTOH, there isn't the slightest likelihood they would simply legislate to stop pensions in payment. They have no need to - inflation will do it for them. Take the index linking, which seems to cause so much of the green-eyed monster. That's capped at 5% and even if I'm eventually proved wrong about barrowloads of banknotes, few people seem in any doubt that true inflation is running much higher than 5%. The relevant index was recently changed from RPI to CPI without so much as a kiss my BTM and if Ozzy could think of another index he would. When I listen to the hapless Governor of the Bank of England making forecasts about inflation that make astrologers look good, I get the impression he is going to come up with an index of his own that excludes all price rises. (It would still go up each month, based on his recent lamentable track record.)

Incidentally, as you slung a deaf 'un as they say, I take it you didn't make a fuss about all this before. I'll save the mods any work and leave it there.

==================================
PS a particularly good NOW SHOW earlier this evening (1830 - Radio 4) which touched on this subject. A had a good laugh at the spoof news item about the designers of ladies handbags going on strike

Yer what?

That's all a bit impenetrable for me.

Am I to understand you feel entitled to a fantastic pension courtesy of the taxpayer for as long as you live?

blackbike wrote:Yer what?

That's all a bit impenetrable for me.

Am I to understand you feel entitled to a fantastic pension courtesy of the taxpayer for as long as you live?

My employment was governed by the police regulations current between 1967 and 1997 (members of a police force are excluded from a lot of the general employment law) and my pension entitlement is enshrined (I rather like that word in this context) in the relevant police pension regulations. In the most general terms, this all included an annual contribution of 7% of gross pensionable pay, increased during Wetlaw's term as Home Secretary to 11%. My pension is 2/3 final salary with a certain amount of index linking (see my "impenetrable" comments above.) While I wouldn't phrase it in the way you do, the broad answer to your question is "Yes." I've never bothered to investigate, but I doubt if there's a mechanism for me to request a reduction if I wanted to please you (which I don't ) You will have to go on sticking pins in the effigy. Perhaps I should also mention that there's a widow's pension, for which I paid extra deductions.

Mawsley you are being just a tiny bit unkind to the old boy.

If I may explain. For some years I was the Chair of the Board of Governors for a school and for some years after that a governor at other schools. During that time I learnt how to handle the local govt people at County Hall, I know what buttons to press.
One thing they really hate is being backed into a corner and having their own words being able to be used against them.
If you use information properly and only give that out at a time to suit yourself you can pull a few chains.
Local govt personal at a certain level are very sure people and not used to having their facts questioned.
So Jonty has a good few weaknesses that can be exposed, but the best one being that he will not ask a question of somebody who he thinks is inferior to himself and god forbid questions his counting.
So I did not give him all the information and deliberately put down wrong figures. This enabled me to say "you are wrong". I knew he would not ask why after all in his former position he felt he could not, old habits die hard.

So I had my bit of fun enjoying him getting out of his comfort zone. This was shown by his personal comments directed at me. I know he did not mean anything personally just could not understand how he got into the position he was in.

Sorry Jonty you are well out of practice old bean.

thirdcrank wrote:

kwackers wrote:.... a promise is only any good if there's something to back it up with.

And I'm sure that an honourable chap like you will keep the promises made on your behalf to me.

Most definitely. Although if you could see your way to slipping me a few quid in my dotage I'd be very grateful!

My concern is entirely with the future.
The realistic solution to future pensions is for all pensions to be paid into 'proper' schemes, that way there are no promises based on future circumstance that may or may not happen, simply pools of cash whose size is dependent on how much the individual pays, when they retire and how well the economy is doing.

kwackers wrote:The realistic solution to future pensions is for all pensions to be paid into 'proper' schemes, that way there are no promises based on future circumstance that may or may not happen, simply pools of cash whose size is dependent on how much the individual pays, when they retire and how well the economy is doing.

Very wise words. The Mirror pensioners asked for exactly that years ago. Pubic sector employees at one time had the Superannuation deductions held separately and that was changed then the money spent.
Personally I would like all pension deductions kept safe from companies and politicians.

Edwards wrote:Mawsley you are being just a tiny bit unkind to the old boy.

If I may explain. For some years I was the Chair of the Board of Governors for a school and for some years after that a governor at other schools. During that time I learnt how to handle the local govt people at County Hall, I know what buttons to press.
One thing they really hate is being backed into a corner and having their own words being able to be used against them.
If you use information properly and only give that out at a time to suit yourself you can pull a few chains.
Local govt personal at a certain level are very sure people and not used to having their facts questioned.
So Jonty has a good few weaknesses that can be exposed, but the best one being that he will not ask a question of somebody who he thinks is inferior to himself and god forbid questions his counting.
So I did not give him all the information and deliberately put down wrong figures. This enabled me to say "you are wrong". I knew he would not ask why after all in his former position he felt he could not, old habits die hard.

So I had my bit of fun enjoying him getting out of his comfort zone. This was shown by his personal comments directed at me. I know he did not mean anything personally just could not understand how he got into the position he was in.

Sorry Jonty you are well out of practice old bean.

Brilliant news to hear you got the better of the old codger; please can you direct me to the thread where it all happened?

Ain't no monkey wrote:Brilliant news to hear you got the better of the old codger; please can you direct me to the thread where it all happened?

Edwards wrote:This was shown by his personal comments directed at me. I know he did not mean anything personally

I take your comment as a back handed compliment. Thank you very much.

When I question the motives of this thread. My thinking was that Jonty misses his old life of debate as a Civil Servant and the opportunity to show his numeracy skills.
That is why I questioned motives. I was certainly not implying anything sinister.

A little bit more explanation is needed.

Jonty in relation to one of his threads said he viewed it as a debating game that helped to keep the brain active.
I took it as that was the purpose of this thread. He is a Grand Master of debating games or he would not have risen to his position in the Local authority. For want of a better term a Goliath, if I was going to be David I knew I did not stand a chance of winning but maybe I could get a toe.
I tried playing the game and it would be nice if Jonty can let me know how I did.
There was nothing personal intended from me towards him and I do not take anything he said about me as personal. If I want to debate with a master I take my chances but I hope I gave him a little brain exercise.

Jonty if this was not as I thought and not the game I apologize for winding you up

Edwards
You did do quite well. I didn't take offence. In fact I quite enjoy a little bit of personal abuse.
jonty

kwackers wrote:...if you could see your way to slipping me a few quid in my dotage I'd be very grateful!

In spite of all my attempts to use legal ways of minimising my tax, I still pay quite a wodge, so in my own small way ....

My concern is entirely with the future.
The realistic solution to future pensions is for all pensions to be paid into 'proper' schemes, that way there are no promises based on future circumstance that may or may not happen, simply pools of cash whose size is dependent on how much the individual pays, when they retire and how well the economy is doing.

Part of the problem is that pensions are used to try to achieve so many different things so one scheme wouldn't cover every purpose. Apart from that, I'm not sure there's any risk-free way of preserving the value of money against inflation over a working lifetime, and that's before even considering any actual return on the investment. I suspect that's why the state retirement pension has always paid out from current revenue, with contributions to National Insurance, SERPS, never being much more than a rather haphazard supplementary income tax.

With the current arrangement, it's pointless many people bothering with additional pension provision because of what they'd get anyway through the means-tested state pension arrangements + "passported" benefits. Age-related income tax relief does something similar a bit higher up the scale. As a possibly controversial example, that lovable cheeky cockney rogue, the latter day Robin Hood, Ronnie Biggs, was awarded a full state retirement pension, presumably in recognition of his contribution to society, in spite of his lack of contributions to National Insurance or anything else. That also means he's entitled to his rent and Council Tax being paid (I'm leaping to the conclusions that he has no savings ) as well as free prescriptions, winter fuel allowance, bus pass and a free telly licence, in addition to possible attendance allowance if his personal pipework is as rotten as the media seem to suggest.

If a private firm monopolised a market to such an extent that it could charge enough for its products to give its employees fantastic pensions which no other firms could afford to pay it'd probably be investigated by the government.

It's important the government itself doesn't take advantage of its position of monopoly supplier of some services to pay its staff higher wages and better pensions than they really deserve under prevailing market conditions. That's the behaviour we'd expect of some corrupt tinpot dictatorship eager to buy the loyalty and obedience of its staff, not an elected government which has a duty to treat all of us fairly.

hubgearfreak wrote:

andrewk wrote:The UK tax burden is already massively too high.

that's just an opinion isn't it? maybe if the top quartile paid a bit more, we could all have a decent standard of living whether we're working or retired, public or private sector. there's people on this island buying sunseeker boats, chartering private jets for shopping in new york and buying £0.5+m motor cars.

it's not going to happen with this government.

Taxing the rich only works in closed economies where you shoot people who try to leave. it works in the short term though, but soon reduces the revenue you reckon it brings in. Not just a theory. Proven.

Loving the rage in this thread. Popcorn ready for thursday.

" what do we want?!"

"subsidized pensions, 3 months holiday a year, infinite job security, and to retire early, all paid for by a magic money tree! oh and public support!"

"when do we want it?"

"ALWAYS!!1!!"

Nutsey wrote:Loving the rage in this thread. Popcorn ready for thursday.

" what do we want?!"

"subsidized pensions, 3 months holiday a year, infinite job security, and to retire early, all paid for by a magic money tree! oh and public support!"

"when do we want it?"

"ALWAYS!!1!!"

I thought you worked for the NHS?
These jobs are open to all applicants if this is such a brilliant deal why does the NHS have to import helath workers from abroad? Yes I know its a free market, but if these jobs are so lucrative then why are britsh people not Clammering to get the jobs ?