|
VAT
Jun 24, 2010 17:07:56 GMT 1
Post by Tux on Jun 24, 2010 17:07:56 GMT 1
Big deal.
Its not exactly much now is it?
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 7:34:56 GMT 1
Post by neilsalop on Jun 25, 2010 7:34:56 GMT 1
if we still do post of the month, then this is it by my Labour voting comrade Thanks sweetie I see all the ex forces lot are out in force, defending their pensions. Not .
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 7:54:19 GMT 1
Post by BlueinSY2 on Jun 25, 2010 7:54:19 GMT 1
if we still do post of the month, then this is it by my Labour voting comrade Thanks sweetie I see all the ex forces lot are out in force, defending their pensions. Not . I wish the forces pension was based on final salary and not on the rank you achieved in the military. Poor research there Neil, its only the top brass who get a final salary linked pension (and Windy only just missed out on that one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 9:54:23 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 9:54:23 GMT 1
Once they've left the force, how long do they have to wait before picking up their pension?
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 10:10:50 GMT 1
Post by BlueinSY2 on Jun 25, 2010 10:10:50 GMT 1
Once they've left the force, how long do they have to wait before picking up their pension? Depends on when they finish their service, the new pension scheme in the forces means that you don't get your pension until your 55 years old, so if you leave at your initial departure point after 22 years service you now have to wait 15 years roughly.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 10:30:12 GMT 1
Post by nicko on Jun 25, 2010 10:30:12 GMT 1
if we still do post of the month, then this is it by my Labour voting comrade Thanks sweetie I see all the ex forces lot are out in force, defending their pensions. Not . Mine just about covers the bills, which is great, I'm very grateful for it and consider myself lucky. If I was to lose my job tomorrow I'd still have a roof over my head, a warm house and if I cancel my Sky+ multi-room, internet and sell the car, my son would be able to eat and be clothed (Micro chips and cheap clothes made in sweatshops by boys no older then him probably) Considering my length of service, some of the s**t I put up with and saw, it could be argued that my pension is a p**s poor return. But I will not argue that because, like I said I feel lucky to receive some money without having to get out of bed. I should also add that upon leaving the Armed Forces you receive a lump sum, which you can either invest, pay towards the mortgage, pay off debts, or spend on booze and Whores until your liver gives up and your dick falls off. I know people who've done all four.....not at once mind.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 10:54:53 GMT 1
Post by BlueinSY2 on Jun 25, 2010 10:54:53 GMT 1
Thanks sweetie I see all the ex forces lot are out in force, defending their pensions. Not . I should also add that upon leaving the Armed Forces you receive a lump sum, which you can either invest, pay towards the mortgage, pay off debts, or spend on booze and Whores until your liver gives up and your dick falls off. I know people who've done all four.....not at once mind. Thats been binned now in the new pension scheme. You get two bigger lump sums at 55 and 65, providing you are still around to collect them.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 11:14:02 GMT 1
Post by neilsalop on Jun 25, 2010 11:14:02 GMT 1
Sorry if it seemed as though I'm against the forces pensions, I most definately believe that they are well deserved. As nicko stated the amount of $h1t the forces have to put up with is worth the pension at the end of it. My argument was and still is, do they deserve it more than, coppers, nurses, firefighters, social workers, even benefit agency staff, because they too have inordinate amounts of the brown stuff and have been looked upon by all governments as less worthy?
Most of these professions I've listed and many more besides are not deemed to be ''heroic'', whereas anyone who serves in the forces are deemed by the press as just that. Is the nurse on a Saturday night shift in A&E any less herioc? What about a copper having to tell a parent that their child has been killed in a car crash? How about the social worker having to juggle 200% extra casework, because of staff shortages and still being able to find the time to protect the most vulnerable? Not to mention the bin men that ensure that the rubbish is collected, the H&S guys that make sure we all work in safe environments, the food standards people that make sure that we are not poisoned every time we eat out or even the council tax collectors that keep the money rolling in to light the streets at night, keep schools heated in the winter, fix the pot holes (eventually) and all the other things that we take for granted.
Like I stated in my first post, we both work in the private sector and although we'd love the benefits that the public sector appears to have, we wouldn't particularly like the responsibility that goes with some of the jobs.
Just to add, my daughter works for the housing dept. and they're having to cut their staff by 20% in her department. She's just keeping her head down and doing the best that she can to keep her job, because at the moment there is very little work out there. Cutting public sector staff might seem like a good idea to some, but she is already doing the work of two people and if the cutbacks do come, she'll probably have her caseload doubled again. Too much responsibilty for a 20 year old IMO, but if it's a choice between that or the dole queue, what would you do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 15:55:12 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 15:55:12 GMT 1
[ Considering my length of service, some of the s**t I put up with and saw, it could be argued that my pension is a p**s poor return. . i think it could equally be argued the same about my pension. it is easy to argue that public sector jobs, pensions, pay ect should be cut, especially if you dont work in the public sector, something the condems are relying on, as most people in this country dont. most dont actually realise when that when the government say they are freezing (cutting) public sector pay, they are not talking about face less whitehall mandarins who live in some dark, sinister underworld in london, they are talking about nurses, policemen, firemen, teachers ect. how is it in the least bit fair that i get a pay cut, when your bankers who caused all this, continue to recieve massive bonuses, should teachers and policemen pay back the countries debt while someone on £100k plus a year just has to worry about paying an extra 20p on the price of trainers? and to think that slimey two faced hypocrit clegg can sit next to osbourne smiling and shouting here here. i sincerely hope his actions in betraying his country and all lib dem voters makes his disgrace of a party unelectable for another 50 years. we all expect this kind of thing from the tories, but from the lib dems? the man is a disgrace.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 19:34:08 GMT 1
Post by nicko on Jun 25, 2010 19:34:08 GMT 1
[ Considering my length of service, some of the s**t I put up with and saw, it could be argued that my pension is a p**s poor return. . i think it could equally be argued the same about my pension. it is easy to argue that public sector jobs, pensions, pay ect should be cut, especially if you dont work in the public sector, something the condems are relying on, as most people in this country dont. most dont actually realise when that when the government say they are freezing (cutting) public sector pay, they are not talking about face less whitehall mandarins who live in some dark, sinister underworld in london, they are talking about nurses, policemen, firemen, teachers ect. how is it in the least bit fair that i get a pay cut, when your bankers who caused all this, continue to recieve massive bonuses, should teachers and policemen pay back the countries debt while someone on £100k plus a year just has to worry about paying an extra 20p on the price of trainers? and to think that slimey two faced hypocrit clegg can sit next to osbourne smiling and shouting here here. i sincerely hope his actions in betraying his country and all lib dem voters makes his disgrace of a party unelectable for another 50 years. we all expect this kind of thing from the tories, but from the lib dems? the man is a disgrace. Are the NHS pensions based on length of service and position (rank)? Or do nurses all get the same pay out? Same question for Police and Fire if anyone knows.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 20:42:30 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Jun 25, 2010 20:42:30 GMT 1
All civil service salaries are reduced to allow for notional pension contributions, and many civil servants also have real pension contributions deducted from their salaries. My wife has just moved from the civil service into local government, doing a very similar job on an equivalent grade. Her salary is significantly higher, but so are her pension contibutions. The savings and contributions (from civil service pensions) are pocketed by the Treasury and used to reduce current Government expenditure, but doesn't alter the fact that public servants pay with either reduced salaries and / or contributions. In pay negotiations, the official side will always cite the 'overall package' , of which the pension is probably the major component', to make the case for pay restraint. Is it now fair, after years of below inflation (ie de facto pay cuts) to argue that these are unafordable? I dislike the way resentment is being stoked up and tensions aggravated between public and private sector workers. The rich and their stooges in government must be laughing up their sleeve as they walk away scot free! That said, I notice those who have forever counselled against 'the politics of envy', now have mainly low paid public sector workers in their sights, fuelled by jealousy of their (often meagere, average around 4K, pensions). One of the best articles I've read on the matter: One for keithyshrew25 and his ilk, methinks. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/06/some_of_the_truth_about_public.html
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 25, 2010 21:13:53 GMT 1
Post by welshdan on Jun 25, 2010 21:13:53 GMT 1
As a private sector worker, in the last 2 years myself and the majority of my friends/colleagues have had pay frozen and many including myself had to take a pay cut to stay employed.
Private or Public employment has been difficult in recent times....
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 6:30:38 GMT 1
Post by Minor on Jun 26, 2010 6:30:38 GMT 1
Something which is quoted that continually intrigues me is the 'low paid' workers in the Publc Sector..........doesn't the minimum wage apply in this sector ? In which case surely the 'low paid' are also of the same ilk in the Private Sector ? And when you hear Union officials who represent Public Sector employees quoting figures about 'my members' earn less than blah blah, you always hear an annual figure quoted such as a % of my members earn less than ££££ but we are never told how many hours said workers put in ,thus enlightening the great British public what the hourly rate equates to.........I wonder why.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 7:35:35 GMT 1
Post by Jonah on Jun 26, 2010 7:35:35 GMT 1
Just as a matter of interest at what income are determined as being rich?
Another fact you cannot ignore is that the number of UK millionaires has halfed since 2007 which tells you high earners are also feeling it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 9:15:52 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2010 9:15:52 GMT 1
Another fact you cannot ignore is that the number of UK millionaires has halfed since 2007 which tells you high earners are also feeling it. have you got a link to that information jonah? my gut reaction is that just because someones savings or assets are under a million pound doesnt necessarily mean they are "feeling it" to.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 10:25:10 GMT 1
Post by Jonah on Jun 26, 2010 10:25:10 GMT 1
Another fact you cannot ignore is that the number of UK millionaires has halfed since 2007 which tells you high earners are also feeling it. have you got a link to that information jonah? my gut reaction is that just because someones savings or assets are under a million pound doesnt necessarily mean they are "feeling it" to. www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/27/uk-millionaires-number-fallsYou dont read the right papers Matron My gut feeling is its all relative regardless of earnings because we have all been living to our means.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 10:25:42 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Jun 26, 2010 10:25:42 GMT 1
Something which is quoted that continually intrigues me is the 'low paid' workers in the Publc Sector..........doesn't the minimum wage apply in this sector ? In which case surely the 'low paid' are also of the same ilk in the Private Sector ? And when you hear Union officials who represent Public Sector employees quoting figures about 'my members' earn less than blah blah, you always hear an annual figure quoted such as a % of my members earn less than ££££ but we are never told how many hours said workers put in ,thus enlightening the great British public what the hourly rate equates to.........I wonder why. Typical Tory antipathy towards the public sector. I work in the public sector and earn £18,000 a year, my standard working week is 37 hours. The majority of members represented by my union are on similar pay. We have also taken several below inflation pay rises - ie pay cuts. Why do you direct your bile at ordinary working men and women who have done nothing to cause the economic problems of the last few years? The minimum wage is very low pay, in fact, it's a a joke. To argue that low pay doesn't exist because we have a 'minimum wage' beggars belief .The Con Dems believe in wage restraint and will keep it so low over the coming years it will become meaningless. I expect the Con Dems to break off and privatise large chunks of the public sector, a cheap sell of that will achieve their twin dreams of privatisation and severe weakening - if not destruction - of the public sectior unions. From there we have a de-unionised work force at the mercy of businesses who want a flexible work force - ie, temporary work, with no or little security and very low wages. And when their services are dispensed with they'll have to work for their benefits (to reiterarte, if work needs doing, then the should be paid at least the minimum wage for it, not workfare. Perhaps they'll be coerced to work in the voluntary sector, but given Cameron's 'Big Society' vision, that could mean almost anything that is currently under the public sector umbrella) Jonah, your concern for millionaires is quite touching, I do hope they're struggling on OK. Having to forego that second yacht must be quite something. Fortunately, the billionaires seem to be doing alright, which is a weight off my mind. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7624159/Sunday-Times-Rich-List-2010-Britains-richest-see-wealth-rise-by-one-third.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 10:53:59 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2010 10:53:59 GMT 1
i dont read any papers, but when i do i make sure i understand it. (i hope ) the article above suggests quite strongly that a large number of these "millionaires" where "property" millionaires, who became "millionaires" when their homes ect passed through the million £ mark, but have now, because of the fall in property prices, fallen out of the million £ plus bracket. this says absolutely nothing then about their disposable income or ability to sustain their previous standard of living? as for being relative, your quite right it is, but anyone who tries to justify their arguement by suggesting someone whose house is now worth £900K rather than £1 million is "feeling it" is a touch......out of touch?
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 12:24:02 GMT 1
Post by Jonah on Jun 26, 2010 12:24:02 GMT 1
i dont read any papers, but when i do i make sure i understand it. (i hope ) the article above suggests quite strongly that a large number of these "millionaires" where "property" millionaires, who became "millionaires" when their homes ect passed through the million £ mark, but have now, because of the fall in property prices, fallen out of the million £ plus bracket. this says absolutely nothing then about their disposable income or ability to sustain their previous standard of living? as for being relative, your quite right it is, but anyone who tries to justify their arguement by suggesting someone whose house is now worth £900K rather than £1 million is "feeling it" is a touch......out of touch? Im not jusitying anything Matron just asking the question to why people just think its the 'poor' who are getting hammered. Still nobody has answered my question. 'Just as a matter of interest at what income are determined as being rich?'
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 14:52:48 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Jun 26, 2010 14:52:48 GMT 1
i dont read any papers, but when i do i make sure i understand it. (i hope ) the article above suggests quite strongly that a large number of these "millionaires" where "property" millionaires, who became "millionaires" when their homes ect passed through the million £ mark, but have now, because of the fall in property prices, fallen out of the million £ plus bracket. this says absolutely nothing then about their disposable income or ability to sustain their previous standard of living? as for being relative, your quite right it is, but anyone who tries to justify their arguement by suggesting someone whose house is now worth £900K rather than £1 million is "feeling it" is a touch......out of touch? Im not jusitying anything Matron just asking the question to why people just think its the 'poor' who are getting hammered. Still nobody has answered my question. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has... www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/23/budget-welfare-poor-ifs-report
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 17:28:02 GMT 1
Post by Jonah on Jun 26, 2010 17:28:02 GMT 1
Maybe I am asking a little to much Shrewsace.All I want is a definition of how much you have to earn to be rich and I suppose the same goes for being poor.
Even the IFS doesn't define it although quotes poor and rich numerous times.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 26, 2010 18:17:09 GMT 1
Post by welshdan on Jun 26, 2010 18:17:09 GMT 1
We have also taken several below inflation pay rises - ie pay cuts. I'd have loved a below inflation pay rise Had to take approx 10% pay drop not counting the 400 miles commuting i now have to do to stay employed... I've only just turned 30 and been made redundant 3 times... so if i turn up at your workplace...panic
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 10:11:07 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Jun 27, 2010 10:11:07 GMT 1
We have also taken several below inflation pay rises - ie pay cuts. I'd have loved a below inflation pay rise Had to take approx 10% pay drop not counting the 400 miles commuting i now have to do to stay employed... I've only just turned 30 and been made redundant 3 times... so if i turn up at your workplace...panic Sorry to hear that, but I don't think we should be falling into the trap of saying 'he's got it even worse, so what are you complaining about'. Inevitably someone will have had it even worse than you. The logical conclusion of this one -downmanship, is a race to the bottom where we're all proferring our labour for a penny less than the next man, cap in hand at the rich man's gate. While they have deteriorated and face future threats my employment conditions have been protected to an extent due to a strong, active union. Sadly non unionised workers will always be more prone to exploitation an deterioration of conditions in times like these.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 12:01:53 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 12:01:53 GMT 1
Maybe I am asking a little to much Shrewsace.All I want is a definition of how much you have to earn to be rich and I suppose the same goes for being poor. Even the IFS doesn't define it although quotes poor and rich numerous times. jonah, i cant find a definition of rich that would have any kind of revelance to this discussion. i guess you already knew that anyway didnt you. bit disappointing to be fair that you would rather play "give us a clue" than discuss the issues.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 12:17:22 GMT 1
Post by monkee on Jun 27, 2010 12:17:22 GMT 1
Maybe I am asking a little to much Shrewsace.All I want is a definition of how much you have to earn to be rich and I suppose the same goes for being poor. Even the IFS doesn't define it although quotes poor and rich numerous times. jonah, i cant find a definition of rich that would have any kind of revelance to this discussion. i guess you already knew that anyway didnt you. bit disappointing to be fair that you would rather play "give us a clue" than discuss the issues. the usual tory tactic, try and bog you down with semantics and definitions so as to avoid questions they cant answer
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 13:25:15 GMT 1
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jun 27, 2010 13:25:15 GMT 1
People at the lower end of the income league table have less flexibility in their spending than those higher up, therefore the 'poor' will always be unfairly treated when there are tax rises and welfare/service cuts.
As for defining 'poor', I find that difficult to think of anyone in this country as poor when I have worked in countries where people live on a dollar a day and literally live in carboard boxes.
The discussion about the effect of VAT on a new TV or car makes the point for me.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 14:03:43 GMT 1
Post by nicko on Jun 27, 2010 14:03:43 GMT 1
People at the lower end of the income league table have less flexibility in their spending than those higher up, therefore the 'poor' will always be unfairly treated when there are tax rises and welfare/service cuts. As for defining 'poor', I find that difficult to think of anyone in this country as poor when I have worked in countries where people live on a dollar a day and literally live in carboard boxes. The discussion about the effect of VAT on a new TV or car makes the point for me. Good post.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 15:58:46 GMT 1
Post by WindsorShrew on Jun 27, 2010 15:58:46 GMT 1
and to think that slimey two faced hypocrit clegg can sit next to osbourne smiling and shouting here here. i sincerely hope his actions in betraying his country and all lib dem voters makes his disgrace of a party unelectable for another 50 years. we all expect this kind of thing from the tories, but from the lib dems? the man is a disgrace. I notice you entirely forget Browns raids on the private pensions that ruined peoples retirement budgets, yet bleat when it's your own pot of gold. I also don't agree that it is entirely the bankers fault, you seem to ignore the actions carried out by Brown etc and just focus you normal attck tactics on Mr Clegg or Mr Cameron. Everybody is hurting but that doesn't matter just the public sector right ? And it was a yacht !
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 16:38:19 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 27, 2010 16:38:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 16:40:56 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 27, 2010 16:40:56 GMT 1
I notice you entirely forget Browns raids on the private pensions that ruined peoples retirement budgets, yet bleat when it's your own pot of gold. I also don't agree that it is entirely the bankers fault, you seem to ignore the actions carried out by Brown. The problems are 99/100ths about decisions made in the banking sector internationally.
|
|