If linked to CPI everyone has to work to make the economy work to earn their pay rise.... or am I being Saturday morning thick??
Funny how public sector workers think their final salary pensions should be inviolate when I and almost all other private sector workers lost our final salary schemes years ago. I am no fat cat and find it laughable that people throw those two words in whenever they want to justify the unjustifiable - that is that ordinary public sector workers deserve no better and no worse than ordinary private sector workers.. Let's try to think about running society based on the 99% of the population who are not fat cats and not landed gentry. An ever higher proportion of aging people mean that what worked years ago does not work now and what worksd now will not in the future. Somebody has to look at and reform pensions - whether it be Labour or Tory
oops..... touched a nerve? re fat cats? Not intended.... actually not a term I use normally. I guess we will find many highly paid private sector employees will have made the necessary arrangements for their own retirement whereas many lower paid will not have been able to due to the cost of living and their low pay. This might be turning into a haves vs have nots issue. Everyone has a right to a pension in our society and has a right to know what they will get etc etc. Many lower paid private sector employees have such poor terms and conditions they need state benefits NOW.... let alone being able to put money aside. The reality for Education employees... and my pension is that.... is that throughout our working lives both the employees and employers have put money into a virtual pot for pensions.... and of course now with student fees going up and up.... more and more of that will not come in any shape or form from "govt" ... but the point I am making is that the education pension scheme is fully costed and paid for. It is not the fault of employees if govt decides to appropriate that to use today and then has to find it tomorrow.... all govts have rather shamefully done that. So the point is I have paid into a self-financing scheme for my entire working life and I have a right to benefit from it. End of. My pension is now CPI linked..... the same I believe as the state pension.... and so they both should be. ( of course this govt changed from RPI to make it cheaper two years back.... and suddently all the Universities were in profit due to savings made.... and all the vice chancellors pay went up due to the profit they had made... TRUE) The fat cats comment was a spurious term to describe the captains of industry and the public sector who all award themselves massive pay increases citing the increases are on a par with the public or private sector etc etc. Now that ought to be stopped. I also note that the big news in Yorkshire is some overpaid Look north presenter earns over £220k per year... while some of her colleagues earn half that. The BBC ( public sector) had to pay her her ITV (private sector) salary to get her. Ask any lower or middle public sector worker and they will agree that public and private sector pay and conditions should be on a par. Or shall we all go back to the workhouses of the 19C or the unregulated sweat shops of the developing world. Slippery slope conversation this. This is not Labour/Tory politics..... this is basic human rights, equality fairness etc. We need to value our community more and stop this divisive posturing of two party govt.
Yes of course that is the flaw in my thinking this morning..... But people who do not have the means to work due to age disability etc should have their living costs insured against inflation. If you look at the pay rises of the upper echelons ( ok I wont say fat cats) why oh why do they get pay rises often several times more than the CPI.... of course their employees who work to "earn" the profits don't get the same pay rises do they.
Yes of course that is the flaw in my thinking this morning..... But people who do not have the means to work due to age disability etc should have their living costs insured against inflation. If you look at the pay rises of the upper echelons ( ok I wont say fat cats) why oh why do they get pay rises often several times more than the CPI.... of course their employees who work to "earn" the profits don't get the same pay rises do they.
Yes of course that is the flaw in my thinking this morning..... But people who do not have the means to work due to age disability etc should have their living costs insured against inflation. If you look at the pay rises of the upper echelons ( ok I wont say fat cats) why oh why do they get pay rises often several times more than the CPI.... of course their employees who work to "earn" the profits don't get the same pay rises do they.
Yes of course that is the flaw in my thinking this morning..... But people who do not have the means to work due to age disability etc should have their living costs insured against inflation. If you look at the pay rises of the upper echelons ( ok I wont say fat cats) why oh why do they get pay rises often several times more than the CPI.... of course their employees who work to "earn" the profits don't get the same pay rises do they.
Shouldn't have mentioned RPI, Yorkie - the Radish Price Index. Everyone knows that radishes repeat on you. Agree with you re Education pensions (but then, I would wouldn't I) - and feel for those around the 50 age mark who have been paying in for most of their service only to now find the sticky residue of government fingers in their pot - which had absolutely no right to be there. They now have to work for eight years longer, pay in more and receive back less than they were promised in the first place. I doubt that things are any different in any other industry - bar politics - though, but that doesn't make it any more palatable. About as palatable as out recent first pay rise for three years - 1%. I normally would view that with a 'c'est la vie' attitude - but when they coupled it with a 1.5% rise in pension contributions and decreased employer contributions....... It's not the self-interest side of this affair that riles me, it's the principle of the thing. Having only worked here for eight years, my pension pot is rather small anyway - more of a spoon than a pot.
Shouldn't have mentioned RPI, Yorkie - the Radish Price Index. Everyone knows that radishes repeat on you. Agree with you re Education pensions (but then, I would wouldn't I) - and feel for those around the 50 age mark who have been paying in for most of their service only to now find the sticky residue of government fingers in their pot - which had absolutely no right to be there. They now have to work for eight years longer, pay in more and receive back less than they were promised in the first place. I doubt that things are any different in any other industry - bar politics - though, but that doesn't make it any more palatable. About as palatable as out recent first pay rise for three years - 1%. I normally would view that with a 'c'est la vie' attitude - but when they coupled it with a 1.5% rise in pension contributions and decreased employer contributions....... It's not the self-interest side of this affair that riles me, it's the principle of the thing. Having only worked here for eight years, my pension pot is rather small anyway - more of a spoon than a pot.
Shouldn't have mentioned RPI, Yorkie - the Radish Price Index. Everyone knows that radishes repeat on you. Agree with you re Education pensions (but then, I would wouldn't I) - and feel for those around the 50 age mark who have been paying in for most of their service only to now find the sticky residue of government fingers in their pot - which had absolutely no right to be there. They now have to work for eight years longer, pay in more and receive back less than they were promised in the first place. I doubt that things are any different in any other industry - bar politics - though, but that doesn't make it any more palatable. About as palatable as out recent first pay rise for three years - 1%. I normally would view that with a 'c'est la vie' attitude - but when they coupled it with a 1.5% rise in pension contributions and decreased employer contributions....... It's not the self-interest side of this affair that riles me, it's the principle of the thing. Having only worked here for eight years, my pension pot is rather small anyway - more of a spoon than a pot.
The only nerve touched by the phrase fat cats is that it is lazy arguing - it is simply a union derived term for the rich. Stems from the jealousy that underpins a lot of political argument. Thatcher and co were accused of fostering a society of greed - but they did not - greed has always been there - and not least amongst the poor. Is it more wrong for a rich person to want to upgrade his Bugatti than for a poorer person to want a better bicycle? Some people are rich because their parent gave them wealth - tell me you do not want to give what you can to your kids. Some people are rich because they are lucky - they won the Euromillions etc Some people are rich because they work incredibly hard and have success - perhaps built up a business Some people are rich because they have enormous talent in their field - footballers and other sports Some people are rich because they have enormous talent at making companies successfull Good on them all. I am not rich and do not envy one of them Some people are poor because their parents gave them nothing - not even a state education Some people are poor because they are unlucky - ill health perhaps Some people are poor because they are incredibly lazy and do nothing for themselves Some people are poor because they have no talent they know how to exploit and work at low wages Not good - some of those deserve help from other people - some do not However a person gets their income or wealth it is still theirs. The rich do not HAVE to share with the poor. However a good society will decide that for the good of all and in some instances for the good of the individual money needs to be taken from others to pay for it. It is not a god given right though and the rich deserve to be treated as individuals as much as anyone. You should take no more from them than is needed. You do not need to take their money for an i-pad for someone else, you do not need to take their money for botox treatment, you do not need to take their money because someone else has screwed up their relationship, separated and now wants their money instead of the responsible "partner". Just because you judge someone else rich enough you cannot hijack their property. Society has a duty to use any money it takes from its citizens responsibly and well
It's a bit like the morning after a night on Fosters followed by a Chick Pea Vindaloo on this thread! - a lot of repeating!
