Jump to content

Government Pensions - Should There Be A Limit?


manxy
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

The fact is the taxpayer funds 100% of your salary

 

That does imply that CS are not taxpayers :-)

That's one argument that grabs my piss. It's a cyclical one too that very soon disappears up its own arse.

 

Anyway, whatever remains in the reserves, the Civil Servants will be the very last, if ever, to feel the pinch. What shreds of our economy exist when the reserves run out will be used to pay and pension their lavish lifestyles here and those swanning it abroad on golden pensions.

Yup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The fact is the taxpayer funds 100% of your salary

 

That does imply that CS are not taxpayers :-)

That's one argument that grabs my piss. It's a cyclical one too that very soon disappears up its own arse.

 

Anyway, whatever remains in the reserves, the Civil Servants will be the very last, if ever, to feel the pinch. What shreds of our economy exist when the reserves run out will be used to pay and pension their lavish lifestyles here and those swanning it abroad on golden pensions.

Yup

 

Yeah, yeah......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being facetious.

 

Simple fact is that we have no money - the world apparently has no money, there is not enough money anywhere for anything anymore, soon I imagine that the mint won't be able to afford the resources to manufacture money and that money being manufactured wouldn't exist anyway.

 

The sky is falling, the rich get richer the poor get poorer, food, water, heating, clothing, medicine, housing, pensions, crime, jobs, security are in short demand and in crisis and th model is failing. Without substantially reducing the population something will have to snap and we'll end up using CS as a food source glad that they managed to eat so much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The delusional civil service think that their pension pots are sacrosanct and that they're laughing all the way to the bank when they retire, as opposed to us paupers in the private sector. Unfortunately, when the money runs out, they will take your retirement money to fund expenditure and leave a big IOU in there. It's happening in Europe, it's happening in the US and it'll happen here. Governments have an insatiable appetite to consume and if it's available and to hand they'll take it. Don't think they won't do here. The UK will only give us assistance when we're broke (coming sooner than you think) once we have exhausted all available avenues for funds. Do you really think they're going to let the manx parasites keep their privileges while they're bailing us out on the other hand?

Edited by Lxxx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they will take your retirement money to fund expenditure and leave a big IOU in there

Maybe but they are going to have to reign in a lot of daft spending before they start leaving IOUs. Happen to book a car into the testing station yesterday. Has anyone seen the little palace the waiting room now is? Yes, if we are awash with money then fine but was that expenditure really necessary? And is it more important than, say, health? Questions, questions, inconvenient questions.

 

Also, just wondered, if they can leave an IOU, can we when the income tax is due?

Edited by ballaughbiker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they drain the pension fund dry by borrowing from it - the pension fund must be alright lending to a triple A rated borrower, eh?

 

What must not happen is for Bell, Corkish et al to see out their days in comfort while the general populace suffers the consequence of their actions

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contracts will have to be renegotiated. Unions will strike supported by UK civil service unions. Let them. It will have to be done.

 

I agree entirely. It is inevitable that sweeping changes will have to be made in the long run. The only question is how long is the run?

 

Being a cynic, I wonder if the reason for the continuing existeance for the much publicised bloat is solely to ensure that sufficient funds by way of new contribution are avilable to be shovelled in to the CS pension scheme purely to ensure, for at least the foreseeable future, the continuing payment of the exhorbitant benefits to retired members. Sooner or later the funds flowing into the pot (when the inevitable happens and we have to get rid of the bloat) will not keep pace with with withdrawals and then there is a big problem and the scenario projected by Angelo will have arrived. Did Bell not say recently that one of the final salary schemes would not be closed to new entrants because the new contributions were vital to continued benefits ? If this is true then the problem is only being kicked into the long grass.

 

I see no differencve, in purely mathematical terms, in comparing the Maxwell Mirror situation with any other pension fund deprived of funds, present or future. The unfortunate Mirror pensioners had to accept a dramatic downward re-adjustment (or was it a total write off?). A similar re-adjustment, albeit not immediate but just as unpalatable, must be at the very least a distinct possibility to any pension scheme, particularly one which has singularly failed to cope with a twenty year bloat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they drain the pension fund dry by borrowing from it - the pension fund must be alright lending to a triple A rated borrower, eh?

 

What must not happen is for Bell, Corkish et al to see out their days in comfort while the general populace suffers the consequence of their actions

 

If only there was a "fund" to borrow against but there isn't any pension "fund" at all. The taxpayer owes the fund that doesn't exist £1.9bn over the next 50 years or so. The pensions are currently paid straight out of revenue as its been explained to me, so they can't even raid a fund all they can do is put up taxes to collect more to pay out to CS pensioners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I hope they drain the pension fund dry by borrowing from it - the pension fund must be alright lending to a triple A rated borrower, eh?

 

What must not happen is for Bell, Corkish et al to see out their days in comfort while the general populace suffers the consequence of their actions

 

If only there was a "fund" to borrow against but there isn't any pension "fund" at all. The taxpayer owes the fund that doesn't exist £1.9bn over the next 50 years or so. The pensions are currently paid straight out of revenue as its been explained to me, so they can't even raid a fund all they can do is put up taxes to collect more to pay out to CS pensioners.

 

Sums it up perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I hope they drain the pension fund dry by borrowing from it - the pension fund must be alright lending to a triple A rated borrower, eh?

 

What must not happen is for Bell, Corkish et al to see out their days in comfort while the general populace suffers the consequence of their actions

If only there was a "fund" to borrow against but there isn't any pension "fund" at all. The taxpayer owes the fund that doesn't exist £1.9bn over the next 50 years or so. The pensions are currently paid straight out of revenue as its been explained to me, so they can't even raid a fund all they can do is put up taxes to collect more to pay out to CS pensioners.

Sums it up perfectly.

Exactly. All public sector pension schemes are a Ponzi scheme which relies on new entrants to fund payouts. It has always been thus. They are perpetual motion, income pays expenditure until the music stops. The 'fund' is merely revenue that is aportioned off. Once funds dry up pensions get to the back of the queue. I for one am looking forward to the day the civil service slackers who lorded it over the rest of us go to collect their non-existent payouts to find it isn't there. Get to the food bank suckers.....!!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I hope they drain the pension fund dry by borrowing from it - the pension fund must be alright lending to a triple A rated borrower, eh?

 

What must not happen is for Bell, Corkish et al to see out their days in comfort while the general populace suffers the consequence of their actions

If only there was a "fund" to borrow against but there isn't any pension "fund" at all. The taxpayer owes the fund that doesn't exist £1.9bn over the next 50 years or so. The pensions are currently paid straight out of revenue as its been explained to me, so they can't even raid a fund all they can do is put up taxes to collect more to pay out to CS pensioners.

Sums it up perfectly.

Exactly. All public sector pension schemes are a Ponzi scheme which relies on new entrants to fund payouts. It has always been thus. They are perpetual motion, income pays expenditure until the music stops. The 'fund' is merely revenue that is aportioned off. Once funds dry up pensions get to the back of the queue. I for one am looking forward to the day the civil service slackers who lorded it over the rest of us go to collect their non-existent payouts to find it isn't there. Get to the food bank suckers.....!!!!

 

Its not government workers fault though is it? Yes they are on fantastical terms that bear no relation to what most other people get, and we pay into the pot for them, but most don't have a clue about how fortunate they are so you can't blame them. If they are over paid, or their pensions are going to bankrupt us to provide, they are not going to put their hands up and say 'fair cop'. Its up to government to manage the situation and to work out a fair compromise to get the costs down. I'm sure this is part of whats going on with the bus workers - they have to be able to re write contracts, and revise T & Cs, before they can start saving money and with the unions making such an arse of the bus strike you can see what the outcome might be if they then started on the rest of IOMG. Tynwald is not going to get the whole of the CS turkeys to vote for Xmas over their own pay or pensions so if Tynwald really is eager to save money its going to get very messy indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed on many threads that there seems to be a big difference in pensionable sizes and would therefore like to ask -

Should there be a limit as to how much a person receives for the rest of their life - or not?

 

 

I am not sure how to answer this question.

 

Allan Bell tried to arrange it so that pensions would be based on a civil servant's average salary during the course of their career, rather than their final salary, but it seems that this was voted down by self-serving civil servants. Why is it even up for negotiation? t's time sovereignty was restored to Tynwald and we cut the power of the civil service and the damn unions. Unless the political will can be found to smash these unions, the island is going to be financially ruined. We can't afford this any longer, and we can't afford to give them ridiculous redundancy pay-offs. Something has to give. What can we do? And who wrote these terms and conditions and allowed them to perpetuate this fiasco for so long in the first place? Is there any way we can pass legislation to bypass the unions and preclude potential litigation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've noticed on many threads that there seems to be a big difference in pensionable sizes and would therefore like to ask -

Should there be a limit as to how much a person receives for the rest of their life - or not?

 

I am not sure how to answer this question.

 

Allan Bell tried to arrange it so that pensions would be based on a civil servant's average salary during the course of their career, rather than their final salary, but it seems that this was voted down by self-serving civil servants. Why is it even up for negotiation? t's time sovereignty was restored to Tynwald and we cut the power of the civil service and the damn unions. Unless the political will can be found to smash these unions, the island is going to be financially ruined. We can't afford this any longer, and we can't afford to give them ridiculous redundancy pay-offs. Something has to give. What can we do? And who wrote these terms and conditions and allowed them to perpetuate this fiasco for so long in the first place? Is there any way we can pass legislation to bypass the unions and preclude potential litigation?

Would anyone notice if most of them went on strike anyway?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...