Vince C wrote: To strike for such cocooning is selfish in the extreme.
I think a better choice of word would be futile, or perhaps misguided. To claim such behaviour is selfish in the extreme is both inflammatory and unfair. Anyone who has had their long standing pensions arrangements blown out of the water can surely empathise with what is being felt by these public sector workers.
It isn't their fault this is all happening, and it is only natural to try to protect your own interests and, directly, your remuneration package.
However, such action is ultimately futile as we have to have a smaller and less costly public sector if we are to encourage private enterprise sufficiently to pull ourselves out of the mire. Tax and spend is not the way to go. Low tax, and the incentive that brings, is more likely to move us all to a better place in the long term.
There are clear signs that the public sector recognises that change is both inevitable and ultimately fair in respect of their pension arrangements. But, that doesn't mean wanting things to stay the same is selfish in the extreme. It is really only normal, and, at the end of the day, we are more likely to win them over by dropping such argumentative stances and by showing a little sympathy for the pain this is bringing.
Paultheparaglider wrote:It isn't their fault this is all happening, and it is only natural to try to protect your own interests and, directly, your remuneration package.
Agreed, and those who express their anger are doing a Vince in reverse, blaming the selfish greed of the "private sector" ie the banks, for the position they are now in. That is not, of course, entirely true, and demonstrates the futility of lumping all those in either the private or public sectors together as if they were clearly debarked groupings.
However, such action is ultimately futile as we have to have a smaller and less costly public sector
Agreed. The state (rather than just the "public sector") has grown far too big.
There are clear signs that the public sector recognises that change is both inevitable and ultimately fair in respect of their pension arrangements. But, that doesn't mean wanting things to stay the same is selfish in the extreme. It is really only normal, and, at the end of the day, we are more likely to win them over by dropping such argumentative stances and by showing a little sympathy for the pain this is bringing.
Well put. There are, of course, those on both sides of the argument who wish to make political capital out of the mess we are in as a nation, but pitting one "side" against the other is simply playing into their hands.
Vince, I well recall the bricks and other things thrown at me by violent strikers in the "private sector" at Wapping and many other places beside, allegedly in defence of their right to maintain a status quo in respect of their earnings and conditions of work. We shouldn't be surprised that "public sector" workers feel as aggrieved now that they are experiencing the same thing. Whatever it may say on the top of the payslip, most humans feel the same or similar emotions.
Yes public sector workers are entitled to feel aggrieved about their pension situation, as I said above, that is natural. Being selfish is a natural human trait. We are all selfish to some degree. Noone blames them for feeling aggrieved.
There is a big jump from feeling aggrieved to believing you have been somehow wronged.
And as for the tanker driver strikes - the reason most of us put up with that before was because their end goal suited our own selfish goals - it lower fuel prices.
So, to freshen the debate a bit - who on here thinks public sector workers shouldn't have their pensions reformed in line with the proposals?
mo0g wrote: So, to freshen the debate a bit - who on here thinks public sector workers shouldn't have their pensions reformed in line with the proposals?
I think that the Right have changed the terms of the argument - convincing everyone that the country can't afford proper pension provision, so its a race to the bottom for everyone.
This suits the Right because they fundamentally believe in "everyone for themselves".
We can afford proper pension provision for both private and public sector (and there should be parity). We could also afford and aspire to the best housing, transport, education, health, policing and armed services but no-one wants to pay for it (tax on individuals and business not borrowing) because the Right have spent the last 40 years since the demise of the Empire (and the loss of all our protectionist income) convincing the nation that everyone, except yourself, is a sponger and unworthy of planning for. Very sad.
Joe, can I come live in your world and enjoy my final salary pension at age 65 by paying less than I am now?
I would also be interested to know what individual and business tax rates would pay for your "proper" (whatever that means) pension provision, "best" (whatever that means) housing, transport etc?
I assume we would need to ensure we were self sufficient as a country because the resultant costs would make us impossibly uncompetetive with any other country? And also prevent emigration so our workers dont flounce off to another country where they arent paying the 95% tax rate, or whatever it will be?
Finally, if you could point me in the direction of the "Left" manifesto which so dratically opposes the failing "Right" principles you outline that would also be great.
No-one blames them for feeling aggreived - private sector workers felt aggreived when their pension projections were reduced for larger contributions, or even frozen completely throwing them onto the markets for pension provision.
But they didn't go on strike over it - because it's inevitable. Final salary pensions as we knew them are no longer viable - in the private or the public sector. But the public sector seem to want to be protected against that pain... That's selfish! No other word for it!
Sent from my Bardic lamp held out of the window of a Churnet Valley signal box.
mo0g wrote:Joe, can I come live in your world and enjoy my final salary pension at age 65 by paying less than I am now?
No, you'll have to pay more.
mo0g wrote:I would also be interested to know what individual and business tax rates would pay for your "proper" (whatever that means) pension provision, "best" (whatever that means) housing, transport etc?
They would be "more", no idea what exactly. But I'd look to Scandanavia for a steer. It can be done. If you want the lowest taxes than you can emigrate to wherever in the world has them. Happiness will follow.
mo0g wrote:I assume we would need to ensure we were self sufficient as a country because the resultant costs would make us impossibly uncompetetive with any other country?
Where have the Scandinavians and Germans being going wrong all these years?
mo0g wrote:And also prevent emigration so our workers dont flounce off to another country where they arent paying the 95% tax rate, or whatever it will be?
I'd rather stick around and do what's best for my country as a whole rather than just myself. You can jog off if you like.
Vince C wrote:But they didn't go on strike over it
Sorry, Vince, but significant sections of the private sector did just that. Just because you may not have done doesn't mean that nobody in the private sector did. In the same vein, some in the public sector may strike, but not all of them will (or have); indeed quite a few in the public sector are forbidden by law from striking and I am not aware of any private sector worker being so restricted. I don't necessarily disagree with your basic sentiments, but I do dislike the stigma which you lazily attach to "the public sector", rather than specific elements of it.
Incidentally, whilst I have no desire to see industrial action rights given to those public servants denied it at present - the police, military, intelligence services, prison service to name just a few - ( I would actually extend it to some others) the withholding of this basic right should be recognised in their remuneration and job security, and they should not be regarded as a simple target for ill-thought through reforms and cuts because they have no legal response, as it seems they are viewed by this and the last government.
Vince C wrote:But they didn't go on strike over it
Sorry, Vince, but significant sections of the private sector did just that.
Like who? I just did a Google search on 'stikes over pension reform' and came up with pages and pages of public sector workers doing just that, and NO references to any private sector pension strikes. It's possible some did, but they must have been vanishingly rare compred to the mass public sector ones. I even tried Googling for private sector pension strikes, and came up with pages and pages of public sector pension strikes......
I don't necessarily disagree with your basic sentiments, but I do dislike the stigma which you lazily attach to "the public sector", rather than specific elements of it.
'Lazily attach'... Oh do come on PW.... The entire media calls them 'the public sector strikes', and rightly so. Do you expect them (and me!)to list all the many public sector jobs that are subject to these strikes just because a handful are by law prevented from striking, and one or two others haven't struck? Reality, please!
Last edited by Vince C on Wed May 16, 2012 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sent from my Bardic lamp held out of the window of a Churnet Valley signal box.
mo0g wrote:I would also be interested to know what individual and business tax rates would pay for your "proper" (whatever that means) pension provision, "best" (whatever that means) housing, transport etc?
They would be "more", no idea what exactly. But I'd look to Scandanavia for a steer. It can be done. If you want the lowest taxes than you can emigrate to wherever in the world has them. Happiness will follow.
"No idea exactly". Quite.
Where have the Scandinavians and Germans being going wrong all these years?
I could mention a few things, I did once but think I got away with it.
I'd rather stick around and do what's best for my country as a whole rather than just myself. You can jog off if you like.
Apparently not because you support public worker strikes, which is not whats best for your country in any way.
Unless by "whats best" you mean "to bring down the current form of government and introduce a form which I cannot get via the normal democratic process".
Incidentally, what is the top rate tax in Germany at the moment? And in the UK?
Incidentally pt2, what political leaning is the current Swedish govt? I would guess so far left that it is 90% gamma ray?
FLYER Exhibitions
Login / Register