UK Budget

Thanks Gary. Pensions are not my speciality either. The only thing I know is that I'll probably end up working until I drop because I joined the council way too late to get a massive pension and have made the fatal mistake of buying my house. So I can't see me getting a state pension by then if I already have provision and, although the provision is inadequate, I have property that I could sell so that I can pay rent for the rest of my life.

Depends on your age -- break it down in to 1/4
every ten years equals a quater - so if you work for the council for 20 years you have 1/2 your pension sorted (ish) - if you can top this up by a small percentage (depending on your age ) you can actual make some vast differences -

as to the State pension - in my opinion this is what will happen

the basic pension will be there - minimal amount
then there will be additionals that will be means tested


The intention of this Goveremnt is to reduce the dependance of the state pension - currently 50%+ rely on this pension and the Goverement want this down to 25% ( thats a long term aim -ovre 25-30 years)
the 25% is down to those that Cannot get a pension - disabled/less abled -
 
I would not suggest you were lazy as you still have employment. I do know a couple of times they had 'early retirement' schemes to cut some of the way too expensive talent and back fill with a more cost effective employee.
Most government pension schemes are defective and underperform what an individual could provide for themselves if there was not the handout system. Most of the underperformance is due to all of the bureaucracy, ineffective processes and having to pool the funds with bad investments and bailouts. Even corporate pension funds have been underfunded to shore up low margins and now the consequences of robbing peter to pay paul have become very evident.
A lot of crown corporations need to become private and allow other copmanies into the market so they become competative so the services can be regulated and tendered to the benefit of the recipients.

I am with you on 95% of this - however here in the UK - there is one service that I don't think should be privatised and thats the mail..
otherwise you will get (and you do) services that will only service the cities and if its out in the country side they don't do it -
now that does not mean there isn't any dead wood in he Post office - but as a service provider - it needs serious thinking
 
Annuities

£10 K will get you about £480 per year (garentee for 5 years wheather you die or not)

A gareented bond over 5 years at £450 on the same £10K and you get the money back at the end - right so this was a quick 30 second look on internet and there are bound to be better options


Investment fund - another quick look 5.7% return so £570 (tax able so take 20% off)


So a quick look at the Annuities shows that there are better returns out there that also allow your money to be transferable ( you can always buy an annunity at any time if the rates look decent)

now this was a quick look and I am not a specialist in this field - but if you hitting 50+ or even 60 and you can work that extra year while they decide what the hell they are going to do - give it some thought- and that extra year will give you some moneis -

If you in poor health and you are not lilkely to live long (soory a bit morid) -they look athte alternatives - this may allow you hard earned money to be spent the way you want it ...
 
Maybe because I'm not a mathematician I can't quite get the math right here:

The government want to reduce the number of people it employs because it employs more people than any other industry.
The government want to reduce the number of unemployed.

How does that work? If I have a hundred beans and they fill a 2 inch bag to the brim, I take the beans out of the 2 inch bag and burn it, then try to fit all these beans into a 1 inch bag instead, it's just not going to work. (OK, example shows I've worked in Education too long :))
 
It all comes down to the fact that it is not sustainable for the country's biggest employer to be the country itself. You are just collecting taxes from the wages you are paying. You will never recoup enough tax to cover the wages (never mind other expenses) this way.
 
There is evidence to show that when a Govt backs off some industries, private enterprise can do the job more efficiently and this does not always mean less employment.
Many times, the industry has grown with a result more employment.

Govt is not good at "growing" a business and of course is not really able to compete in other sectors ie they must keep the operation restricted to the original concept where as private enterprise can branch out and leverage the business.
 
The good news for all public sector workers is - if their jobs are as essential as they say they are , but they are unfortunate enough to get "cut".

Then beacuse the service they provide IS essential, the private sector will soon take it up, and the wage will be upped to what everyone in the public sector thinks is a superior deal from private companies.

So really the current process is one to celebrate!

----

Unless of course you think, many public sector jobs are overpaid and a waste of time. Which of course they are. Then you need to worry.
 
It all comes down to the fact that it is not sustainable for the country's biggest employer to be the country itself. You are just collecting taxes from the wages you are paying. You will never recoup enough tax to cover the wages (never mind other expenses) this way.

So the solution is to outsource, pay twice as much (initially, rising to four times as much once the contractor has the job in hand and the country by the *(&^s) and reap the tax from the contractual bandits that will be servicing the people, many of whom will, no doubt, be overseas contractors who will not be subject to taxation in our country. Sounds like a good plan to me, but then I'm employed by local government so I would think it's best to throw good money after bad :rolleyes:

It's frightening to think that we may have private police forces and private fire fighters! One can only imagine what will befall those who do not pay their police or fireman's bills.
 
Unless of course you think, many public sector jobs are overpaid and a waste of time. Which of course they are. Then you need to worry.

The term "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" springs to mind ;)
 
not quite -

How much dead wood is there in various departments ..

quite a lot of large organisations could cut 5-10 % out and restructure the jobs and it would work - Unions are protecting(as is there job) there members - this isn't always in best interest of the country or the end customer-
Unions need to be strong enough to protect members but not too strong (Its a fine line and occassionally it goes wrong on both sides )
THe car manufactors is a good example of unions and goveremnt/companies working together - the union realised that the whole industry coudl collapse - so they worked hand in hand with the companies - short time - event x weeks no work or pay - however there jobs were saved - soem natural wastage - which helped

-
as to Public Sector pension problem - whatever the solution must be top down - so anyone on a salary in excess of £50K - must be made to do a stakeholder pension immediately and the pension payout should be limited to this top figure then there shoudl be a standard retirement age of 65 (soem exceptions) - but generally the same and the same % contributuon must be made so 6-8 % by the goverement and it must be matched by the employer

then a move to a total stakeholder postion (and a payrise to take into effect this addtiional burdern)

in 15-20 years time the country woudl reap the benefit of this with lower taxes - as the cost of paying for PS pensions would be lower
looking at Surrey the pension bill of this council is £33 million PA and the local council tax is £125 million over 25% - now the council does get monies from central govement and the overall bill is 5-6 % -

however if this was funded correctly your local council bill would be at least 25% lower

No easy answers on this - just highlighting the problem - anyone who takes this on isn't going tob e liked - so to get it accross we need to start at the top and loweer the ceiling line so (50K ) then reduced this to 35K - five years later then reduce this to £30K five years later and deal with everyone under 30 K - this way we are dealing with what most people think are the ones who are taking the piss first then mid management level then supervisors - and then the remainder - they might even do a 25k layer and then deal with everyone else afterward this would then give a 15 year break to resovle the first 3 teirs
 
Gary, you get my vote! What you say makes perfect sense so much so you could never really be voted into office. Still, it's worth putting your point across, send this to Jeremy Vines show or better still, Downing Street!
 
So the solution is to outsource, pay twice as much (initially, rising to four times as much once the contractor has the job in hand and the country by the *(&^s) and reap the tax from the contractual bandits that will be servicing the people, many of whom will, no doubt, be overseas contractors who will not be subject to taxation in our country. Sounds like a good plan to me, but then I'm employed by local government so I would think it's best to throw good money after bad :rolleyes:

It's frightening to think that we may have private police forces and private fire fighters! One can only imagine what will befall those who do not pay their police or fireman's bills.

You shouldn't have Privatisation without Deregulation and Competition.
Not sure I accept the need to privatise the Police?? except some functions are already privatised in regard to Security Companies and Competition exists in this industry.

Some health services are already privatised. Do you visit a private doctor or is he or she a public servant? Of course theydon't compete on price but they do compete on service.

Privatisation can increase taxes. We had a Govt owned bank that was Privatised. The new business made a profit (old one a loss), paid taxes, employed more staff, who paid taxes and in this case, the Govt retained a minor share and rec'd Dividends exceeding what they ever dreamed of getting when they owned it. Also, the customer service increased. Any apparent downside??
One was Govt Officials no longer have a "cookie jar" and and another was slack workers were given the boot.

How can a company do business in the UK, say cleaning streets and not pay taxes??
 
How much dead wood is there in various departments ..

A good friend works for a company that used to be a state agency, and then was privatized (they provide workman's compensation insurance). During that process, they had round after round of layoffs. When things settled down, 75% of the "workers" had been let go (yes, that's 3 out of 4). I asked my friend if there really had been that much dead wood there, and he said yes. That may be an extreme example, but I suspect most government entities contain a large percentage of dead wood.

Coincidentally his wife worked for the city, and said it is much the same there. Countless people just try to look busy all day; they have no productive function.
 
I am working for a company that has 100 + people in it and I can see that they have 1 or 2 people in accounts that are surplus and one or two in It (ouch) that are surplus and thats just on one floor where I can see only 50 people so theres your 4 that could be trimmed - I have offered to build there system and this would trim the work load down even further so another 1 or two from differnet areas...
that still leaves enough for holiday/sickness cover and the work load would not be increase ..
 
Some health services are already privatised. Do you visit a private doctor or is he or she a public servant? Of course theydon't compete on price but they do compete on service.

Mine is currently an NHS doctor. When I lived in South Africa we had to have private medical insurance so our doctor was private. You could always get an appointment to see him on the day you needed him but he didn't do house visits.

My NHS doctor is the opposite, sometimes it's difficult to get an appointment with her, but she does do house visits if you need her urgently. There was one time, when I was really ill at the beginning of last year, when she actually visited my home to give me some test results and ask me to go into hospital that night. Now, that's service and dedication.

My only gripe with NHS doctors, the ones in our surgery, is that they do not have enough time to spend with their patients. You can see how that can be frustrating, it's all about number crunching in the NHS as with any government agency these days.

A good friend works for a company that used to be a state agency, and then was privatized (they provide workman's compensation insurance). During that process, they had round after round of layoffs. When things settled down, 75% of the "workers" had been let go (yes, that's 3 out of 4). I asked my friend if there really had been that much dead wood there, and he said yes. That may be an extreme example, but I suspect most government entities contain a large percentage of dead wood.

Coincidentally his wife worked for the city, and said it is much the same there. Countless people just try to look busy all day; they have no productive function.

I think that can be said for here too. Unfortunately though it's all about jobs for the boys and the boys are the dead wood, so they'll end up keeping the water and throwing out the baby, in my opion :eek:
 
I have only worked one government job, so have a very limited experience (admin for HMPS), but when I started, the person I took over from struggled to get the job done in the day. Within 2 months, I had the job down to 3 hours a day. What was the response from my manager, "Great, now what am I going to get you to do?!"
 
you also have the fact that there is alos a requirement to take on "special" people ..and this case cause a problem .
 
I'm in the situation where I now do the work of 4 people, plus my own job. The work of the 4 people who were made redundant have been reduced to 4 macros 3 of which are run weekly and the other monthly, this is all in the private sector.
 
I'm in the situation where I now do the work of 4 people, plus my own job. The work of the 4 people who were made redundant have been reduced to 4 macros 3 of which are run weekly and the other monthly, this is all in the private sector.

This is true also. I am fighting this kind of thing everyday at my current job. The difference for me is that they are happy (in the private sector) when something is made quicker/easier.

My personal feel is that in the public sector, they are always concentrating on cutting millions, instead of cutting lots of small amounts that add upto the large amount. It is all about quick wins that politicians can brag about.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom