Pensions cut = strikes

[Brian Kirby]

The above, I hope, will be a picture of a webpage from payscale.com, showing median salaries by employer types for the UK.

[Brian Kirby]

The above, I hope, will be a picture of a webpage from payscale.com, showing median salaries by employer types for the UK.

[Brian Kirby]

Apologies, I thought that once I was in the edit screen, the 30 minutes limit was suspended.  Obviously not!  What I was trying to edit it to say, was this:

Above is a picture from a web page at payscale.com, showing median salaries by employer types for the UK.

I have no idea how right/wrong it may be, but hope it may be a useful starting point for a different look at the problem of pensions provision.

It seems useful because, despite some of the statements made on here it shows that, at least for the median, there is not that much difference between the various employer types.

What interests me is what these median earnings mean in terms of pension contributions.  Taking the "Government - state and local" category, at £25,730pa, what scale of contributions would this median salary employee need to make, to retire on (as nearly as possible) 50% salary after 40 years, on a good money purchase pension scheme, under present economic conditions? 

What are the risks, other than death, that might affect his eventual payout? 

For example, he has to contribute to a fund for 40 years.  What reasonable % return should he expect from his fund over that period. 

On, or soon after, retirement, he has to buy an annuity.  What size of pot does he need to achieve his goal of, say £12,750pa pension? 

What level of monthly contribution, at the above rate of return, needs to be maintained for those 40 years, to generate that pot, and how would that typically divide between employee and employer?

How should the inflation risk during his working life be catered for?

How far can he realistically expect to protect his pension from inflation post retirement?

How "safe" is his scheme?  For example, how variable is his fund performance likely to be, and how much does the rate of pension payable vary, depending on when the annuity is bought?

Is it really worth it, and is there a better answer?

I think this is really for Clive, so I apologise for proposing he wastes his time on this exercise, but I think it may be illustrative for many of us (me included), but more particularly may show Rob the difference between what his present scheme provides, which I assume is non-contributory, and what he would have to pay to get close to pension parity were his scheme contributory, of the type suggested.  He, and others, may then begin to see what provokes some of the vitriol on this subject whenever it arises.

[Guest pelmetman]

Wot................. No seperate listing for poufe & pelmet makers 8-) :D

[Big Momma]

Brian Kirby - 2011-03-18 5:33 PM

 

particularly may show Rob the difference between what his present scheme provides, which I assume is non-contributory, and what he would have to pay to get close to pension parity were his scheme contributory, of the type suggested.  He, and others, may then begin to see what provokes some of the vitriol on this subject whenever it arises.

 

Brian, sorry, this thread has gone on for so long perhaps you can enlighten me as to what profession Rob is in which you 'assume' is non-contributory ?

[Guest pelmetman]

Big Momma - 2011-03-18 6:57 PM

 

Brian, sorry, this thread has gone on for so long perhaps you can enlighten me as to what profession Rob is in which you 'assume' is non-contributory ?

 

Doesn't really matter whether the public sector payslip states he/she makes a contribution or not it is still all paid by the Private sector :D

 

Cant wait til Sue starts drawing her civil service pension, then I will be paying her twice (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

I don't think he has said, Eric, but as a member of the PCS I would assume his pension scheme would be likely to be non-contributory.  In truth, I don't think it will make much difference whether it is contributory or not.  I tried to play with some figures, but lack the knowledge to produce anything useful or meaningful.  However, what I did produce frightened the living daylights out of me!  Mostly, I think, this was because present fund earnings, and annuity rates, are so low, and I was probably being overly pessimistic but, if not, the present generation of work entrants face a truly awful future with huge contributions being needed to give them anything like present pension returns.  That is why I thought it might be instructive to see what someone who knows his stuff would produce.  It has nothing to do with public versus private, although I know Clive strongly disagrees, because I don't think it really makes that much difference, in that ultimately, whether a scheme is funded or not, the money to pay the eventual pension comes from all our pockets, whether from private profit or from taxation.  Having said that, I should add that I strongly agree with Clive that the taxing of pension funds was a really bad move, and works against the interests of all who want a decent standard of living in their retirement.

[Guest Tracker]

Not quite how I see it Brian?

 

For the public sector we all pay for the public sector pensions because there is no funding whatsoever so no fund to pay from so what we pay in tax today the public service pensioners get in pension tomorrow.

 

For the private sector if we fail to save or our employer fails to save or the funds are fraudulently or incompetently 'dissipated' nobody pays our pensions because there is no safety net called taxation to bail us out so we all just get SOD ALL. Not only but also, the government takes it's cut all the way along.

 

Furthermore the private and self employed pensions sector creates employment and taxation revenue for the country whereas everyone employed to service public sector pensions is a drain on taxation which the rest of us have to subsidise?

 

Or am I being too generous!

 

Our generation has without doubt got/had the very best of the pension era and that the outlook for youngsters today is very bleak and/or very expensive both in terms of cost and in years of paying that cost.

[Guest pelmetman]

I reckon you have found the nub of the problem there Brian :D ..............Many of todays kids will never be able to retire or if they are lucky when they reach 80 8-)............By which time they will have finished paying of their student loan :D

[Big Momma]

Brian Kirby - 2011-03-18 7:30 PM

 

I don't think he has said, Eric, but as a member of the PCS I would assume his pension scheme would be likely to be non-contributory.  In truth, I don't think it will make much difference whether it is contributory or not.  I tried to play with some figures, but lack the knowledge to produce anything useful or meaningful.  However, what I did produce frightened the living daylights out of me!  Mostly, I think, this was because present fund earnings, and annuity rates, are so low, and I was probably being overly pessimistic but, if not, the present generation of work entrants face a truly awful future with huge contributions being needed to give them anything like present pension returns.  That is why I thought it might be instructive to see what someone who knows his stuff would produce.  It has nothing to do with public versus private, although I know Clive strongly disagrees, because I don't think it really makes that much difference, in that ultimately, whether a scheme is funded or not, the money to pay the eventual pension comes from all our pockets, whether from private profit or from taxation.  Having said that, I should add that I strongly agree with Clive that the taxing of pension funds was a really bad move, and works against the interests of all who want a decent standard of living in their retirement.

 

Thank you Brian. I was just trying to discover if I had missed a post where Rob had stated that he was in a profession that had a non-contributory pension scheme. Not wanting to get back into the debate about the Private Sector funding the Public Sector again but just to make a point that I too am a member of the PCS and I do have a deduction from my salary towards my pension, the deduction is taken from my salary via my employer, although you may be a memebr of a Union they are not your employer (Unless of course you are employed by the Union, if that makes sense). The Union do however take a percentage of your salary for being a member of the Union. Another falasy is that the Armed Forces have a non-contributory pension. For those that are, or have served, they may be aware of something called the 'X factor' (No nothing to do with Simon Cowell :D ), this was a calculation used for the payment of allowances and also deductions from salary. The main purpose was to justify the pay disparity between male/female members of the forces, those days have gone, however, part of the 'X factor' deduction was towards the pension. The question that some ex-service personnel may want to ask, if they did not complete 22 years pensionable service but only 9, 12 or 15 years is, I didn't get a pension so where are the contributions I made ? As the payslips did not record an employee pension contribution, try proving you ever made any. So where did this money go to that was put into the Public Sector Pension Pot............ (?) *-)

[Big Momma]

Tracker - 2011-03-18 7:36 PM

 

Not quite how I see it Brian?

 

For the public sector we all pay for the public sector pensions because there is no funding whatsoever so no fund to pay from so what we pay in tax today the public service pensioners get in pension tomorrow.

 

For the private sector if we fail to save or our employer fails to save or the funds are fraudulently or incompetently 'dissipated' nobody pays our pensions because there is no safety net called taxation to bail us out so we all just get SOD ALL. Not only but also, the government takes it's cut all the way along.

 

Furthermore the private and self employed pensions sector creates employment and taxation revenue for the country whereas everyone employed to service public sector pensions is a drain on taxation which the rest of us have to subsidise?

 

Or am I being too generous!

 

Our generation has without doubt got/had the very best of the pension era and that the outlook for youngsters today is very bleak and/or very expensive both in terms of cost and in years of paying that cost.

 

Oh why oh why do I let myself get drawn back in *-) Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that the Public Sector is funded by the private Sector. I thought we had got past that debate. However, the question is, if there was no public sector then all those Services that are currently 'Public Sector' would have to become 'Private Sector' services and as such would have to do what the Private Sector has to do, Make a Profit. So let's say we did away with taxation and the Public Sector do you really think that the amount you would save by not paying tax would cover the cost of the now 'Private Sector Services' that you would have to pay for. Not sre how it would work though, perhaps there would need to be some sort of Insurance scheme, if there were anyone wiling to take on the risk. When you needed an ambulance you would have to pay for it, those living in rural areas would have a larger bill as they would be further away from the hospitals. I guess we would do what a lot of foreign hospitals do, they do not feed the patients it is up to freinds and relatives to take food in. How about paying for the fire brigade to turn up to your house fire, after they had first checked that you had the appropriate insurance to cover their call out cost. And who would police your streets, private security companies perhaps. not only would you have to pay for your household refuse to be collected but also the cost of the recycling and I could go on and on and on, just stop and think about how many Public Sector Services there actually are. You cannot in one breath say we do't want to fund the Public Sector and then decide well maybe you may want to keep a few. So just think about it, Get rid of all Public Sector and think where that will lead us.............Brave New World, I don't think so, more like Anarchy.

 

So Rich, what is your solution 8-)

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2011-03-18 7:36 PM Not quite how I see it Brian? For the public sector we all pay for the public sector pensions because there is no funding whatsoever so no fund to pay from so what we pay in tax today the public service pensioners get in pension tomorrow. For the private sector if we fail to save or our employer fails to save or the funds are fraudulently or incompetently 'dissipated' nobody pays our pensions because there is no safety net called taxation to bail us out so we all just get SOD ALL. Not only but also, the government takes it's cut all the way along. Furthermore the private and self employed pensions sector creates employment and taxation revenue for the country whereas everyone employed to service public sector pensions is a drain on taxation which the rest of us have to subsidise? Or am I being too generous! Our generation has without doubt got/had the very best of the pension era and that the outlook for youngsters today is very bleak and/or very expensive both in terms of cost and in years of paying that cost.

There is no question that the public sector generates the wealth, that generates the tax, that funds the public sector.  There is nothing particularly new, or unusual, in that, it is what states have done, one way or another, since states were invented.

But, this was really about pensions, Rich, not about how states fund their activities.  There seems to be a common agreement that "front line" jobs must be protected, and an equal agreement that "backroom" functions should be cut.  The problem, as I see it is that it is not quite that simple.  The front liners need the backroomers so that they have the time to spend on front line activities.  Dave was in the navy.  I assume he was on a ship.  Someone had to provide, provision, fuel, and arm that ship, or it would be useless.  Most of that procurement work was backroom activity, and was carried out by the MoD.  I'm not going into how effectively it was done, just that it was necessary.  If the work was transferred directly to the navy, it would still have to be done, either by taking front line personnel from their front line activities, or by taking on backroom staff to do the job.  Result, in broad employment terms, no change.

Back to pensions.  Say the navy pension were made contributory.  Who would pay the contributions? The usual pattern is that the cost is divided between employer and employee.  Presently the employer pays the lot out of current tax income.  If the navy pension were contributory, the ratings and officers would have to pay their whack.  I assume, when they discovered how much this would be, they would pretty soon seek compensatory pay increases.  The net wage bill for the navy raises, but is still all from taxation.  The employer's contribution would fall from present levels, but is still there.  So, the difference is what?  So far as I can see, it is the amount by which the contributions can be expected to grow over the time before the annuity has to be bought, and the amount of pension that annuity will buy.  So, how much is that?  That is what I hope Clive can answer. 

The point, in terms of a sales pitch, is that the outcome is risky for the recipient, whereas the present scheme is not, so it will be a hard sell.  The normal consequence of asking someone to take on board risk, is that they expect to be paid for doing so.  That, basically, to cite another string, if why a light bulb bought under PFI ends up costing £25.  I just have my doubts that switching the whole of the public sector, as some clearly want, into funded, contributory, money purchase, pensions will, in fact, prove that much of an overall saving.  It isn't the arithmetic, or the accountancy, that will prove difficult, but the politics inherent within the economics.  When you change costs, you also change behaviours, and the outcomes of those changes are notoriously difficult to predict.

I am quite clear that change has to be made, and that the number of people directly in the public sector will have to fall.  But, IMO, that has far more to do with present politics, than with economics.  I can see no clear consensus among economists as to the need, speed, direction, or scale, of cuts that should be made, which indicates to me that there is no one "right" way out.  It seems to me very grey, and the overall outcome in terms of the economy at large very uncertain.  The only certainty I can see is that anyone who expects to wake up in three years time and find their tax bill has suddenly halved will, I predict, discover they have been living in cloud cuckoo land.  After all, only two things are certain in life: death, and taxes.  :-)

[Brian Kirby]

Big Momma - 2011-03-18 11:34 PM .............. Oh why oh why do I let myself get drawn back in *-) ........

Oh go on Eric, admit it, it's because it is such fun!  :-D

[Big Momma]

Brian Kirby - 2011-03-18 11:47 PM

Big Momma - 2011-03-18 11:34 PM .............. Oh why oh why do I let myself get drawn back in *-) ........

Oh go on Eric, admit it, it's because it is such fun!  :-D

Can't be seen to be enjoying myself, It's a bit like getting intimate with the OH, they all close their eyes because they hate to see you enjoying yourself :D :D Same on here, if you look as if you are enjoying the banter and debates people lose interest, start sounding as if you are being brow beaten it draws them in for the kill (they think :D )

[Gwendolyn]

This is clearly a very emotive subject and I just want to reflect and perhaps ask some questions.

 

Probably I’ve said before, on this, or on another thread, 40+ years ago I chose to go into teaching. I can assure you that I had NO THOUGHT of the pension to come. 40 years ago, 40 years hence, with all the self centredness of youth, was beyond my contemplation. In all honesty I didn’t know there would be a pension. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I had heard of the Old Age Pension, and that is as far as it went.

 

It’s clear from comments here that some of you believe that those of us who say we want[ed] to give ‘service’ are just spouting sanctimonious hog wash. OK, that’s fine, believe it if you wish. I hope that I’m not that cynical about people’s avowed motivation, and I can be very cynical indeed – on business and banking among other things. And I still do voluntary work in the community – always have done, always will [variously, Guide / Scout movements; PTA; Mental Health Charity; Women’s Refuge; community projects; arts organisations; fund raising; charity shop volunteer]. And I’m not pious and that is not more sanctimonious hog wash either. I just try to do my bit. It’s fun anyway… getting stuck in.

 

Right… so let’s put it this way.. idealistically, back in the 1960s, some of us went into public sector work because we honestly did not want to go into business / industry as we distrusted the 'profit motif', the ‘boss class’ culture, ‘filthy money’ and so on. Naïve??? Probably, way back then. And now I concede we need both. And I think a healthy society needs a private and public sector in mutual support.

 

What I find a bit hard to take is that people like me are regarded as public enemies – or is that over stating the case????.

 

OK, I concede that there are problems – we live longer; medical advances mean ever more sophisticated treatments, all of which cost a great deal of money. So we do, as a society, face a funding problem which was not envisaged by the founding fathers of the welfare state. The welfare state has been hoist on the petard of its own success.

 

So now my questions and my ‘take’ on it all … why, when times were ‘good’ were my friends and family, who worked in the private sector urging me, and my husband, to leave our state sector jobs and “get off PAYE”? “You’ll never get rich in the state sector,” they said.

 

Is it the case that business men / self employed people have ‘clever accountants’? Because that is how some of us in the public sector see it. [Recently we entered into a ‘business arrangement’ with some people we knew. It didn’t go well and we were facing a huge loss. They bailed out – and, as self employed people, had their accountant sort it out. We – retired people from the state sector - had to find our own solution when left carrying the can. My husband emerged from retirement and secured a contract with a firm, working away from home, in order to rescue us from the pickle – it caused us more angst and inconvenience than the self employed pair.]

 

It seems to me [and I’d welcome a different view] that when times are good economically that people in the private sector who are able to increase earnings / profits / bonuses / put a bit aside for their pension, do so. And why not.

But at the same time, people in the state sector can never earn more than their fixed salary as it’s all dictated by the scale one is on. No matter how hard I worked, no matter how good the results were of my exam classes, no matter how buoyant was the economy, I never earned a penny more.

 

And, truly honestly, I paid for a lot myself – books, video tapes, courses, teaching aids and so on… because I wanted to do a good job, and if the resources were not there I provided them from my own pocket. But I loved teaching my specialist subject anyway, and I liked my students, so it was no hardship to me; didn’t give it a second thought.

 

Why is opinion so polarized on all this?

 

Honestly puzzled and bemused. I do NOT wish to sponge on you all.

 

And should not we be seeking a common solution; not public v private, but how, as a society, we cater for all into a decent retirement?

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Gwendolyn - 2011-03-19 12:43 AM

 

And should not we be seeking a common solution; not public v private, but how, as a society, we cater for all into a decent retirement?

 

I agree Gwendolyn, but how can the Private sector have any other input into the debate except via forums like this :D

 

I dont think many people want the public sector to be privatised, I dont :-D Thats just a recipe for big business to line their pockets *-) I want to see the public sector live within its means.

 

Why for a start do we need so many kids to get a degree :-S (?)

 

[malc d]

Gwendolyn

 

You are now making it even more complicated !

 

Up to now it's been about the public sector and the private sector, but it seems that you are now dividing up the private sector up into ' employed' and 'self employed'

 

I spent all my time in the private sector and was on PAYE, so the idea that if you leave the public sector you get off PAYE is incorrect.

 

I would suggest that most people in the private sector are on PAYE.

 

(Self employed people with " good accountants " are a different issue ! )

 

 

(lol)

[Gwendolyn]

malc d - 2011-03-19 9:28 AM

 

Gwendolyn

 

You are now making it even more complicated !

 

Up to now it's been about the public sector and the private sector, but it seems that you are now dividing up the private sector up into ' employed' and 'self employed'

 

I spent all my time in the private sector and was on PAYE, so the idea that if you leave the public sector you get off PAYE is incorrect.

 

I would suggest that most people in the private sector are on PAYE.

 

(Self employed people with " good accountants " are a different issue ! )

 

 

(lol)

 

Well perhaps that shows that, far from making it more complicated, the problem is not as simplistic as public v private?????

And I have not "divided " up the private sector - I have not the power to do that!!! Surely the division is there anyway????

 

 

[malc d]

Gwendolyn - 2011-03-19 10:25 AM

 

malc d - 2011-03-19 9:28 AM

 

Gwendolyn

 

You are now making it even more complicated !

 

Up to now it's been about the public sector and the private sector, but it seems that you are now dividing up the private sector up into ' employed' and 'self employed'

 

I spent all my time in the private sector and was on PAYE, so the idea that if you leave the public sector you get off PAYE is incorrect.

 

I would suggest that most people in the private sector are on PAYE.

 

(Self employed people with " good accountants " are a different issue ! )

 

 

(lol)

 

Well perhaps that shows that, far from making it more complicated, the problem is not as simplistic as public v private?????

And I have not "divided " up the private sector - I have not the power to do that!!! Surely the division is there anyway????

 

 

 

Sorry Gwendolyn, I must have misunderstood what you said.

 

When you said that your friends and family said you should leave the state sector and "get off PAYE" I took it that you were suggesting that most people outside the state sector were not on PAYE.

 

However, I think that the thread has strayed a long way from " the problem " which is how to fund the public sector pensions in the future when people will be living a lot longer and drawing a pension for many more years than the original 'pension planners' predicted.

 

I'm sorry that robkilby didn't come back as he seemed to indicate that he didn't think that there is a problem and I would like to have heard his reasons for saying that.

 

;-)

[Big Momma]

Okay, so let's see what the Government are doing now to address some of the issues:

 

Public Sector workers - 3 year pay freeze

 

Public Sector pensions - Much larger contributions and less Pension at the end of it that is the current practice

 

Public Sector Expenditure - Qwango's abolished, Private Sector Consultants charging extortionate rates sacked, Centralising Procurement so that different Government Agencies no longer select their own suppliers meaning that instead of having dozens of service providers supplying the same goods and services at disproportionate costs, a handful of suppliers bid for the work at acceptable prices.

 

Public Sector Workers - 1,000's being made redundant

 

Now to me that say's that actually the Government is doing a lot within the Public Sector to reduce the costs. It will never be enough for some people though will it ? But do not say that things are not being done within the Public Sector to address the issues.

 

However, the majority of the Private Sector is unable to expand and so will not be able to offer jobs to not only those leaving school but also to the 1,000's of Public Sector workers joining the unemployed brigade. Result, more Tax Payers money being used to provide 'Job Seekers' allowances, Housing benefits, NHS Treatments without the extra revenue coming in.

 

It is a vicious circle but at least the Public Sector pensions are being reigned in

 

perhaps we should now move on to the Millions of TaxPayers money that get's given away to non-UK taxpayers in International Aid, money that we are told is not available. We are told that the money we are/will be saving is not sufficient to service even the interest payments on our national debt but that we must all tighten our belts. So whilst we are tightening our belts and sufering let's just give the money we pay in tax to others outside the UK who do not contribute into the system and who will never be asked to pay any of it back.

 

And now that we have cut back the military budget, sacking many of the Armed Forces personnel, mothballing/scrapping Ships, Planes, Tanks etc let's get involved in yet another overseas dispute so that the UK Government can look good on the International stage.

 

And what do we do, complain about Public Sector pensions, ho hum

 

*-)

[malc d]

Hi Big Momma

 

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say but your paragraph titled " Public Sector Expenditure " is revealing.

 

"Private sector consultants charging extortionate rates "

 

or you could say

 

" Public sector management ACCEPTING and paying extortionate rates ".

 

Also:

 

" Centralising procurement ... so that goods and services are not provided at disproportionate rates "

 

? Why haven't the public sector been doing this for years ? It's been the norm in many, if not most, large private sector companies for years.

 

It's not surprising that the perception of the public sector from outside is that no-one in the public sector ever takes costs too seriously.

( Until now).

 

 

 

 

*-)

[Big Momma]

malc d - 2011-03-19 3:48 PM

 

Hi Big Momma

 

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say but your paragraph titled " Public Sector Expenditure " is revealing.

 

"Private sector consultants charging extortionate rates "

 

or you could say

 

" Public sector management ACCEPTING and paying extortionate rates ".

 

Also:

 

" Centralising procurement ... so that goods and services are not provided at disproportionate rates "

 

? Why haven't the public sector been doing this for years ? It's been the norm in many, if not most, large private sector companies for years.

 

It's not surprising that the perception of the public sector from outside is that no-one in the public sector ever takes costs too seriously.

( Until now).

 

*-)

 

And of course you are right about why have they not looked at it before, cannot answer that one but certainly not going to disagree with you. However, let's take some heart from the fact that it is now being looked at, and in a very impactive manner ;-)

[Colin Leake]

Before I retired I once had a supplier who was supplying my group with good quality photocopier and printer paper for £1.63p per ream. Over a Christmas lunch one day he explained he was happy to supply us with large amounts at hardly any margin because it enabled him to buy direct from the mills and supply paper at much larger margins to various local authorities. If I remember correctly the price he got was between £2.60p and £3.80p depending on what he could get away with with each individual authority.

 

What high powered hard nosed buyer in our group negotiated this great deal for us? Well it was Margaret well into her sixties and in charge of the Post Room who also purchased our stationary supplies and who as a matter of routine was constantly looking for better prices for everything all the time.

 

She has long since retired but clearly what the public sector needs is a few more like her. Even without central purchasing I'm at a loss to understand why they ever pay the prices for goods and services they do. The only explanation I can think of is that as it is public money they have no incentive to work at the job and one can hardly blame suppliers and contractors for taking advantage of that.

[Brian Kirby]

Big Momma - 2011-03-18 11:14 PM ..............I do have a deduction from my salary towards my pension, the deduction is taken from my salary via my employer, although you may be a memebr of a Union they are not your employer (Unless of course you are employed by the Union, if that makes sense). The Union do however take a percentage of your salary for being a member of the Union. Another falasy is that the Armed Forces have a non-contributory pension. For those that are, or have served, they may be aware of something called the 'X factor' (No nothing to do with Simon Cowell :D ), this was a calculation used for the payment of allowances and also deductions from salary. ..........

However, if Clive has the time to work up a rough projection along the lines I suggested, I think a different picture may emerge.  What I think he will show is that the contributions necessary to give this theoretical, but factually based, individual his pension of half his salary after 40 years are truly staggering.  In reality, it matters not whether our individual works in private or public sectors, if the aim is a pension equivalent to half annual salary, my calculations suggest the contributions would be unaffordable for most mortals.  No wonder bankers pay themselves salaries in the £ millions! 

Contribute, you and Gwendolyn may, but I'll bet those contributions come nowhere near meeting the true cost.  However, I hope I'm wrong, because the picture I generated suggests a very bleak future for present school leavers.  :-(

Gwendolyn - 2011-03-19 12:43 AM ............... And, truly honestly, I paid for a lot myself – books, video tapes, courses, teaching aids and so on… because I wanted to do a good job, and if the resources were not there I provided them from my own pocket. But I loved teaching my specialist subject anyway, and I liked my students, so it was no hardship to me; didn’t give it a second thought. Why is opinion so polarized on all this? Honestly puzzled and bemused. I do NOT wish to sponge on you all. And should not we be seeking a common solution; not public v private, but how, as a society, we cater for all into a decent retirement?

You bought things from your own pocket, I would suggest, mostly because you had a true sense of vocation, and possibly, just possibly, also because living in a two income household you could afford to do so.  :-)

The answer to your final point, IMO, is that of course we should.  However, not all will agree.  25 years ago we lived in a "model village" in which all footpaths, drains, and street lighting were maintainable by various residents' societies, membership of which was a condition of purchase.  (Roads were adopted.)  I well remember a heated argument with another resident, about whether a sinking fund should be established to provide for future maintenance of these common facilities.  I said it should, he said it should not.  His reason was that it was unreasonable for present residents to contribute to the benefit of future residents.  If and when the time came, the future residents should foot the bill.  I argued it was reasonable to contribute, because present residents were contributing, through use, to the demise of the facilities.  Apparently, my view made me some kind of communist apparatchik!  The polarisation seems to me merely a continuation of the same debate in a different context!  :-)

pelmetman - 2011-03-19 9:08 AM  I agree Gwendolyn, but how can the Private sector have any other input into the debate except via forums like this :D

The private sector has the ear of government to far too great an extent.  I have worked for small and medium sized private consultancies, a local authority, a government department, and a largish plc. 

I worked for government in a department that procured construction work.  That is to say, we were given briefs for projects by government departments, based on which we drew up designs and specifications, obtained approvals, invited and vetted tenders, let contracts, supervised construction, and settled accounts.  Doing this we had contact with contractors all over the country, and consequently got to know who was good, and reliable, and did a fair job for a fair price.  So, you might perhaps expect us to favour those contractors, by ensuring they were always on tender lists?  Oooooooh no!  You absolutely must not do that.  Why?  Because the other contractors monitored who got the government contracts, and if they found that only certain firms were favoured they gave ministers, including the prime minister of the day, earache about how unfair it was. 

So, we had to invent a totally unnecessary, time consuming, paper-chase of a scoring system to ensure they all got their turn, and record and justify every decision, so that total neutrality could be demonstrated.  It was a Conservative government, and the construction industry was, and to my knowledge still is, a major contributor to Conservative party funds.  (Not, of course, that that can possibly have influenced the arrival of the scoring system.  :-)) 

The result, was that certain contractors, whose past performance would have excluded them from any tender list compiled on a reputational basis, won tenders, and then proceeded to lodge claim after claim, because they employed large pools of quantity surveyors who had to justify their existence by making claims, resulting in normal working relationships (sometimes fraught even with good contractors) breaking down, construction costs rising and, all too often, expensive court cases to settle final disputes.  Result?  Poor construction bought at inflated prices.  But also, more complaints to ministers etc by aggrieved party funders (sorry, contractors - especially if they lost the cases  :-)), requests from ministers for investigations and justifications, more wasted time and, frequently, unhappy commissioning departments because their new facility was late, over budget, and didn't work properly (some of these being large and complex projects, that under any circumstances would have been difficult to commission properly, but were almost impossible to get to work with everyone at each other's throats!).  Oh yes, it was truly great fun, and an ideal way to work!  NOT.

[Big Momma]

Colin Leake - 2011-03-19 4:33 PM

 

Before I retired I once had a supplier who was supplying my group with good quality photocopier and printer paper for £1.63p per ream. Over a Christmas lunch one day he explained he was happy to supply us with large amounts at hardly any margin because it enabled him to buy direct from the mills and supply paper at much larger margins to various local authorities. If I remember correctly the price he got was between £2.60p and £3.80p depending on what he could get away with with each individual authority.

 

What high powered hard nosed buyer in our group negotiated this great deal for us? Well it was Margaret well into her sixties and in charge of the Post Room who also purchased our stationary supplies and who as a matter of routine was constantly looking for better prices for everything all the time.

 

She has long since retired but clearly what the public sector needs is a few more like her. Even without central purchasing I'm at a loss to understand why they ever pay the prices for goods and services they do. The only explanation I can think of is that as it is public money they have no incentive to work at the job and one can hardly blame suppliers and contractors for taking advantage of that.

 

Sorry Colin, but are you one of those people who wait until someone falls over and then you go and stick the boot in rather than offer them a hand up. We have acknowledged that it should not have been allowed to happen, someone should have checked that these underhanded Private Sector firms would would take advantage and abuse a floored system so that they could line their own pockets, give themselves god pay rises, slap themselves on the back and award themselves bonuses for making a profit. The same people who then complain that the Government is taking more and more from the Private Sector to fund the Public Sector. Do you not see that you are the Architechts of your own problem.

 

Now something is finally being done, and not before time, so try and take the optimistic and not the pessemistic view. Unless of course you realise that by this more stringent scrutinisation, the impact on those Private Sector businesses that have been used to gorging themselves on the inadequacies of the Public Sector 'Management' is coming to an end. What goes around comes around and when the moans start coming about Private Sector businesses going to the wall because they can no longer make huge profits from the Public Sector, I wonder if you will say, about time because it was some of you that helped create your own demise. Somehow I doubt it, you will look to lay this at the feet of the Public Sector yet again.