Striking Teachers.....

[inky pete]

How is anyone, professional or otherwise supposed to plan for retirement if the formulaes they use keep changing.

In exactly the same way as everyone else does. There's virtually no final salary pension schemes left in the private sector - because one of the most basic formulae, namely life expectancy, has changed far beyond what any realistic level of funding could cope with.

 

This is not about politics, it's about basic facts of life.

 

They have already agreed to paying more into the pension, getting the pension later in life and receiving less. They have already had to accept no pension increase for 2 years. What is the point of going to arbitration or acas or agreeing any contract if a few years later it's not worth a carrot

 

Because, for the period that the agreement was in force for the contributions made and benefits accrued are banked and safe.

 

The changes proposed are not retrospective, they only affect the benefits to be accrued from future contributions, and the alternative is for the public sector "funds" to eventually run out of money and either have to be bailled out by taxpayers who can't afford to provide anything like that level of income for their OWN retirements, or for pensions to be cut for those already retired and reliant upon them.

 

If teachers and other public sector workers don't like the generous pension deals on offer then they should be free to cease contributing and invest their contributions in their own private pension funds. I wonder how many would?

[wolfie]

There's virtually no final salary pension schemes left

 

So why don't the government lead by example and scrap theirs?

 

As for funds running out of money, teachers contributions are paid to the government and the attractions of a very large pot of money apparently doing nothing for many years was too much for employers and the government, who then started putting their sticky fingers in the pot, with the result that schemes that were perfectly viable are so no longer.

[observer]

"This is not about politics, it's about the basic facts of life" - could that be the fact that the Investment Bankers screwed up the system, and now under the guise of austerity, the plebs are being made to pay?! This is clearly about "politics", a Tory attempt to take workers back a 100 years - and on cue,the latest kite being flown is the idea of scrapping Bank Holidays. Well, if this generation are so docile as to accept it, they deserve it.

[inky pete]

Bank Holidays ceased to have any legal meaning years ago Obs. It was the last Labour government which changed the rules on minimum holiday entitlement from "20 days plus 8 public holidays" to "28 days total". There is no entitlement to bank holidays as a day off, nor is there any legal entitlement to overtime pay for working them.

 

Like it or not, the current financial problems - which you could blame on the bankers, or on the spendthrift socialists, or on the publics demand for credit they couldn't afford, or on worshipping the God of home ownership at any cost, or on Brown flogging off all the gold at a cut price, or on the Arabs for artificially inflating the price of oil, or on the rise of the Asian and South American economies as competitors, or on any one of the hundred other contributory factors - have seriously damaged the performance of the investments upon which ALL retirement provision both public and private is based. Couple that with the fact that we are all, on average, living much longer and it is inevitable that pensions are going to have to cost more, be taken later, and pay out less.

 

Just because the public sector pensions are administered by the government doesn't mean that the taxpayer should be used as a guarantor expected to make up the inevitable shortfall.

[wolfie]

The tax payer is not required to make up any shortfalls. In 2006, the Teachers Pension Scheme was changed for new entrants, and assessed by an independent auditor. It was found that the new scheme was fully self-funding.

There is also a requirement in law for the Government to carry out independent assessments of the scheme every four years. No changes could be made in future without an assessment. The proposed pension changes are politically, not economically motivated.

[observer]

Don't disagree with your general drift, which basically amounts to the fact that we've witnessed a collapse of the capitalist system. and no doubt we're "all in it together" and modifications will be required by all. However, where we differ, is that those primary responsible are NOT being held to account or penalised in any way; the broadest shoulders are NOT bearing the heaviest load and the weakest in society are suffering the brunt of austerity disproportionately. Chancellor Osborne, having seen some examples of the tax returns of "the rich", said he's "shocked" to discover that they pay as little as 10% of their earnings on average, when he expected they would be paying a third of their wealth. So if the man responsible for the Country's finances is so naive, there's not much hope for the rest of us.

[inky pete]

SOME may pay as little as 10% in a particular year, if for example they are using tax reliefs for investment in their businesses and thereby creating jobs. But 10% of a £1million+ a year is still FAR more tax than anyone on here will ever pay!

 

So stop with the jealousy and the false allegations that the rich aren't paying their way. They are, they always have done, and we'd best just pray that they continue to do so!

[asperity]

I have to agree with Inky's assessment. Obs, as usual, has his blinkers on. Wolfie, well I do have sympathy for your arguments. The problem is that, being who we are, self interest always comes to the fore.

 

As for our Chancellor being naiive Obs, I think you must be naiive for believing him :roll:

[observer]

No jealousy involved, unlike your obsession with public sector workers; just a simple application of a progressive tax system - those with the most, should pay the most - it's called fairness. Tax avoiders will be paying the least amount possible, that's why they employ accountants. :wink:

[Lt Kije]

I agree with Obs

[Dizzy]

Blimey

[inky pete]

No jealousy involved, unlike your obsession with public sector workers; just a simple application of a progressive tax system - those with the most, should pay the most - it's called fairness. Tax avoiders will be paying the least amount possible, that's why they employ accountants. :wink:

 

And you don't think a £100,000+ per year tax bill qualifies someone as "paying the most" do you? They're certainly paying far more than their share!

 

Let me pose a couple of questions on the subject of tax avoidance.

 

Have you ever had an ISA? Tax avoidance.

 

Did you ever pay betting tax on the stake rather than the winnings? Tax avoidance.

 

Ever claimed uniform or clothing allowances for work? Tax avoidance.

 

Ever claimed Tax Credits? Tax avoidance.

 

Ever had a Child Trust Fund? Tax avoidance.

 

Ever used Gift Aid? Tax avoidance.

 

Ever had a conversation with elderly parents about putting their house in a Trust? Tax avoidance - possibly illegal evasion.

 

Ever bought or sold anything new on ebay, at a car boot sale, or through classified ads? Probably tax evasion.

 

Ever paid a tradesman cash for a discount? Tax evasion.

 

Ever bought booze or tobacco from a mate who's been on holiday, or brought it back yourself for someone else? Tax evasion.

 

According to HMRC, the last two combined represent over 2/3rds of all the tax evasion which occurs in the UK, and it isn't really the multi-millionaires who are doing those two now is it?

 

My point is that EVERYONE is a tax avoider at pretty much every opportunity which presents itself. It's perfectly legal and there's nothing wrong with it, it could just as easily be described as "taking up your entitlements". Most people are also tax evaders at one time or another. The fact that some people pay accountants vast sums to advise them on what entitlements they can legally take up to minimise their tax bill just shows how MUCH tax they're being expected to pay in the first place.

[Lt Kije]

But the richer you are the more loop holes to exploit

[wolfie]

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance as it is the government who invented it. Evasion is a different matter as it means that others have to pay extra to finance the evasion.

As for

Ever paid a tradesman cash for a discount? Tax evasion.

 

Ever bought booze or tobacco from a mate who's been on holiday, or brought it back yourself for someone else? Tax evasion

 

The answer is NO on both counts.

 

Avoiders are merely playing the system, evaders are cheats.

[observer]

Sounds about right Wolfie. An example shown on CH4 news last night, showed how a £10million income can avoid paying any tax at all!

[Bazj]

The Red Fox and the Red Wolf together.... showing their true leftie colours on this one chaps!

[Lt Kije]

Who's the red fox?

[observer]

When you've run out of arguement Baz, name calling is always a good ploy - the press do it all the time!

[wolfie]

[Bazj]

Who's the red fox?

 

Exactly........ Who Is The Red Fox!!

[wolfie]

Getting back to topic. This is what George Osbourne said in 2009.

Major cuts would be made to MPs' pensions under a Tory government, George Osborne announced yesterday. 
The Shadow Chancellor said MPs would be banned from joining the current gold-plated scheme based on age and time served. 
Instead, they will be forced to join a defined-contribution scheme like other workers. 

 

However after years of telling everyone that we can't afford such schemes this is the reality.

The MPs have a funded final salary scheme, into which they pay a fixed contribution. 
Last month, the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that MP's pensions should rise by 2.4% to reflect 
the amount paid by ordinary public sector workers.However Ipsa, which took over the running of MPs’ 
pensions last Autumn, said it should only rise by 1.85 per cent

 

But, we are all in it together ...... again

 

 

[observer]

Steady on Wolfie, you'll upset the blue whale!

[Lt Kije]

[Mary]

As a teacher I can understand the strike - although as a responsible adult I would not strike unless I felt I had no other choice... maybe they feel that way?

[Peter T]

Union minded people don't have a conscience. It's me first and me second.