Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/18/2018 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    Should be capped at £25k (remember that this is in addition to state pension), and lump sum capped at £75k. This would be seen by the wider population as at least more acceptable. It is only a small percentage of government pensioners receiving grotesque amounts and it is getting the rest tarred with the same brush.
  2. 9 points
    Shipman would have stopped this.
  3. 5 points
    Alf reveals Govt Pension payouts (iomtoday). Some big numbers and lucky people in amongst them. But it wouldn't be fair to be too specific for fear of the recipients being identified. Just rewards for a lifetime of gruelling IoM Public Service. Apparently.
  4. 5 points
    And how many of those on the £50,000 plus pensions spent the last 10 years in IOMG getting over promoted and constantly over paid at each pay review just to ratchet up the final salary they could claim against their pension before pissing off?
  5. 5 points
    but pensions also assume/estimate growth rates that just aren't there anymore. there is no population growth like after the war which got rid of many people who would be claiming a pension, it was a young expanding workforce to pay for not too many pensioners who had short life expectancy. today we keep old folks going decades past their use by date. how anybody can expect to pay almost nothing up to a few % over a working life and then receive 2/3 rds of their final salary as a pension along with a lump sum is unrealistic. i was talking to a retired nurse a few years back who did the maths and said the lump sum was in excess of their entire careers contributions ( maybe didn't include employer contributions ) and then they were getting a reasonable pension too. and lets not forget there is no investment in a pension pot here, government pension payouts cone from revenue, the pension pot is a paper exercise based on air. a continually denied ponzi scheme i don't see why a pension should have a lump sum attached at all, it should be just a weekly payout like the state pension with an extra tenner at christmas , if you want a nest egg save it yourself.
  6. 5 points
    Some of the most crooked, nasty, bent and greedy people I have ever come across have been accountants and lawyers. But that's by the way, If someone won the house they wouldn't be able to claim anonymity so I don't see why they should for the alternative cash prize.
  7. 5 points
    Quite so. And of course, these people had not necessarily enjoyed a) way above average salaries while working, b) a stonking great lump sum to retire with, and c) an occupational pension until they die, three times what many people would be pleased to have as a salary for working a full week. One rule for one...........
  8. 5 points
    Yes I wonder if Mitchell shouted at anyone to get out of his way on his arrival?
  9. 5 points
    I work in the private sector and my pension is a defined contribution scheme, but I agree with Wrighty. You can't tell someone for years they are going to get X, allow them to structure their finances around that and a few years before they retire say "sorry you are only getting Y", when it's too late to make other arrangements.
  10. 5 points
  11. 5 points
    Two things that occur to me. You have ignored the totally unecessary and stupidly generous MARS scheme "If they're paid the right sum for their expertise" leaves far too much open territory. My first point demonstrates only too well that the CS/PS should never be allowed to "manage" their own grading and thus remuneration.....
  12. 5 points
    I don't think they were flawed from the start (of the NHS, for example, so 70 years ago) - it's just that life expectancy increases have outpaced increases in pension contributions. When retirement age was 65 and age at death was 69, 45 years of contributions at 5% covered 4 years of 50% salary (simplistic figures for illustration not meant to be a robust actuarial calculation). Now it's more like 85, so the pension pays out for 20 years. The problem is that successive governments have stuck their head in the sand as it's been considered too difficult a problem to solve, so in the UK they keep borrowing, here we'll dip into reserves. I think this is changing though, and rather than Draconian measures, the preferred way seems to be gradual increases in retirement age, contribution rates, and possibly a tax on lump sums... And as for definition of 'Draconian' - it really depends on your starting point. So for most people a lump sum of £75000 is a lottery win, but if you've planned, year on year, to use a substantial lump sum to pay off a loan or similar, and suddenly you're told you're only getting 25% of what you were promised over the last 40 years, then yes, I consider that to be Draconian.
  13. 4 points
    She should concentrate on her own jurisdiction and feck off sticking her tongue in ours. Awful woman.
  14. 4 points
    Must have been unwell. I get where Wrighty is coming from but contracts and terms and conditions can be re-written. They’ve done it on state pensions often enough they just dint like doing it on their own.
  15. 4 points
    The problem with your analogy Wrighty is this, the "spent accordingly" of the government high roller has been spent on him/herself, whereas the "spent accordingly" of the builder has been spent on the customer's kitchen. My old mate Wooley is completely correct (he's obviously developed some sense in my absence) If somebody earning enough to qualify for a £300K lump sum can't struggle by with £75K windfall and £25K pension till they drop, then what hope is there for the rest of us? I do have some sympathy for your predicament, but we live in times of austerity, and although it would be nice to honor a commitment to pay someone who's been in receipt of a 3 figure salary for many years previous their King's ransom lump sum, such largess is no longer affordable.
  16. 4 points
    'You Cant' Why not? Exactly what the endowment companies told us. Sorry chap, not gonna pay what we said they would. You'll have to make alternative arrangements to pay off your house.
  17. 4 points
    Arrrfff - I strolled through this morning and the clean up project has begun, one bloke with a few sheets of ply, and a 15 litre tub of white paint. Keep your expectations low.
  18. 4 points
    For the umpteenth time, how do you know this with such certainty? Just what esoterica are you privy to which might explain your absolutism?
  19. 4 points
    I agree. But they did just that with womens pensions. Over night people were told they had to work another 5 years. No sliding scale there, if you were due to retire in 3 months time is was now another 5 years..
  20. 4 points
    Ah, but state pension recipients aren't (yet) going to gang up in industrial and threatened legal action and allegedly bring the Island grinding to a halt.... Prospective State pensioners are easy meat when "adjustments" have to be made, arising fron the failings of inept and spineless politicians.
  21. 4 points
    Had they known that their promised lump some would be quartered then it would have been. You say I’m defending the indefensible, but you’re advocating the unjust. It’s like getting a builder to fit you a new kitchen for £10000, so he selects granite, German appliances etc. Just before finishing the last bit of sealant round the sink you tell him you’re only going to pay him £2500, and that he really should have known to use mdf and Hotpoint. I think we probably have a similar objective for the pensions issue, but clearly radically different notions of how to achieve them.
  22. 4 points
    I understand your point, wrighty. I have considered this at length over many years. These arrangements were flawed from the start. They arose out of negotiations between trade unions representing government employees and, er, government employees representing the taxpayer, so no vested interests there then. I appreciate that some of the agreements have been foisted on us from across. So you are worried about someone who has earmarked a £300k lump sum for a mortgage? I hardly think that £25k per year (plus state pension) and £75k lump sum is draconian. Most right thinking people would be extremely chuffed with that. What about the youngsters who will pay for this largesse all of their working lives, and who will be lucky if they ever amass enough capital for a deposit on a starter home? That is where chaos may ensue, and who could blame them for kicking against the elderly fat cats who may be sitting pretty for decades. It's fine to make crazy promises but when things change you can't get blood out of a stone, as many in the private sector have found to their cost, in both terms of employment and pension arrangements.
  23. 3 points
    Hypocrisy is correct TSE. The UNCHR is an organisation with 50 or so sharia-based nations in its ensemble, takes it upon itself to complain about the rights of Mexican kids. The same organisation who accepted many states into its fold which have an exceedingly poor record of human rights toward its children and adults. So yeah, hypocritical situation.
  24. 3 points
    Especially when they are doing manual work like cleaning etc. It will see a few of them off...no doubt part of the plan.
  25. 3 points
    They don't seem to do well down that part of the Island do they?
This leaderboard is set to Isle of Man/GMT+01:00