Ouch!!

[Neil2]

I think we should be outraged whenever an arbitrary increase in fees is levied on a powerless consumer group. Like the TV "licence" the BW licence is a form of taxation in that we have no alternative but to pay it, we can't take our money elsewhere like domestic fuel for example. Plus, there is no way, like the council tax for example (except in rare liveaboard cases) that we can claim any sort of rebate/benefit and also no way to mitigate the fees like the road fund licence where you could buy a zero rated car etc. The BW licence when you think about it is almost unique in its tenacity, and yet the ability of fee payers to challenge it almost non existent.

 

Let's hope the change to charitable trust status will introduce some real accountability.

[carlt]

I think we should be outraged whenever an arbitrary increase in fees is levied on a powerless consumer group.

This is not true.

 

Any boat owner has the option to move their boat to a waterway that is operated by a cheaper Authority.

 

This is exactly what I did.

[Guest]

Gloat while you may.

 

People whose salaries are paid for by tax-payers are now paid more than those in the productive (private) sector; they usually retire earlier; they have larger, safe, index-linked pensions; they take longer holidays; they have much greater job security; they take much more time off sick; and they think they can go on bleeding the private sector dry ad infinitum.

 

Like their fellow rip-off merchants in Greece, they are in for a rude awakening. The country cannot afford to support the parasite class for ever, and given that even the Labour Party hierarchy acknowledge this, the come-uppance of our so-called civil servants cannot be far away.

 

Public sector pension cuts are going to happen. Boasting about your undeserved (I mean that generally) good fortune on the internet will only stiffen the resolve of those who are determined to reduce the massive and unsustainable cost of public servants' pensions.

 

Your sweepimg, generalisation is so full of utter tosh

 

 

 

Ed for fat fingers on phone

Edited October 1, 2011 by MJG

[cotswoldsman]

Gloat while you may.

 

People whose salaries are paid for by tax-payers are now paid more than those in the productive (private) sector; they usually retire earlier; they have larger, safe, index-linked pensions; they take longer holidays; they have much greater job security; they take much more time off sick; and they think they can go on bleeding the private sector dry ad infinitum.

 

Like their fellow rip-off merchants in Greece, they are in for a rude awakening. The country cannot afford to support the parasite class for ever, and given that even the Labour Party hierarchy acknowledge this, the come-uppance of our so-called civil servants cannot be far away.

 

Public sector pension cuts are going to happen. Boasting about your undeserved (I mean that generally) good fortune on the internet will only stiffen the resolve of those who are determined to reduce the massive and unsustainable cost of public servants' pensions.

 

This does again prove that you just spout a load of rubbish.

If we just take your productive private sector companies in the UK in the top 10 are the following

Royal Bank of Scotland

Lloyds Bank

BAE

 

Now if you want to talk about bleeding the taxpayer I think those 3 companies have done quite well out of the taxpayer.

As for indexed linked pensions if you are trying to say that the private sector do not enjoy the same I can assure you my pension is indexed linked as are many private pensions.

Can I suggest you look at the pensions of the CEO's of the FTSE 100 companies.

[Barry]

£3.61 per month extra for a 57' boat. What is that? A couple of these?

 

No just one - thats inflation for you

[carlt]

No just one - thats inflation for you

If those smilies are normal head size, surely they are half-pint pots?

[Proud Salopian]

Like the TV "licence" the BW licence is a form of taxation in that we have no alternative but to pay it..

 

Surely if you have a boat on BW waterways then you pay their fee. If you don't want to pay that fee, don't have a boat on their waterways... similarly if you don't want to pay the TV licence then don't have a TV. It's not like taxation at all.

[carlt]

Surely if you have a boat on BW waterways then you pay their fee. If you don't want to pay that fee, don't have a boat on their waterways... similarly if you don't want to pay the TV licence then don't have a TV. It's not like taxation at all.

Of course it is.

 

If you don't want to pay income tax, don't have a job.

If you don't want to pay VAT only buy zero rated things.

If you don't want to pay Council Tax, live on a boat.

 

Taxes are not defined by whether or not you have a choice whether or not to pay.

[Pluto]

Of course it is.

 

If you don't want to pay income tax, don't have a job.

If you don't want to pay VAT only buy zero rated things.

If you don't want to pay Council Tax, live on a boat.

 

Taxes are not defined by whether or not you have a choice whether or not to pay.

Not entirely correct as I can't remember when I last paid income tax as my income is too low. My business is also registered for VAT, so I can reclaim almost all that I pay related to the work I do as my VATable income is low. You can reduce your taxes, just don't expect much income.

[sebrof]

This does again prove that you just spout a load of rubbish.

If we just take your productive private sector companies in the UK in the top 10 are the following

Royal Bank of Scotland

Lloyds Bank

BAE

 

Now if you want to talk about bleeding the taxpayer I think those 3 companies have done quite well out of the taxpayer.

As for indexed linked pensions if you are trying to say that the private sector do not enjoy the same I can assure you my pension is indexed linked as are many private pensions.

Can I suggest you look at the pensions of the CEO's of the FTSE 100 companies.

 

Had G Brown not taken responsibility for bank supervision away from the Bank of England, and given it to a quango that knew nothing about anything, it is arguable that the excesses you describe would not have occurred.

 

Capitalism is the law of the jungle, and for that reason it has to be carefully controlled. Brown's problem was that he didn't realise that, and just let everything rip. Meanwhile, he took credit for the boom.

 

Now, it's convenient for your argument to select three years out of the past 100 when major British banks needed tax-payer funds - which by the way, will be repaid in due course. The rest of the time the banks you mention have contributed massively to employment, to exports, to the economy, and to tax receipts.

 

As for pensions, there are now almost no final-salary, index-linked pension schemes left as far as people working in the private sector are concerned. If your old company still has a final-salary scheme, then it is most unusual. It is more likely that the scheme has, at the very least, been closed to new entrants. Existing pensioners, like yourself, are OK, provided that the company you used to work for is still able to support it.

 

And I rather doubt that your pension is fully indexed-linked. Take a look at the small print, and if it is like the vast majority you will find that rises are capped, often at 5%, or even 3%.

 

Why have final salary schemes disappeared? Because G Brown started taxing them.

 

Why did we have a property bubble? Because G Brown encouraged it.

 

Notice a common theme?

 

Your sweepimg, generalisation is so full of utter tosh

 

 

Which bit, Tony?

 

By not being specific, you are liable to be accused of sweeping generalisations.

 

Yes if the public sector stopped subsidising the private sector we could pay off the deficit and not make all the public sector workers redundant...

 

How can the public sector subsidise the private sector when its income is derived from the private sector?

 

Of course the wealthy private sector fat cats would make sure they didn't suffer and make the poor private sector workers redundant.

 

You're rambling.

 

Perhaps the best thing would be to stop slagging each other off and attempt some peaceful co-existence?

 

Your advice would carry more weight if you led by example.

 

Perhaps Mr Schweitzer could stop gloating about his pension, and his public sector colleagues could stop striking. At a time when so many people are seeing their incomes reduced, his complacent "I'm all right, Jack" attitude strikes a rather sour note. Hence my response.

Edited October 2, 2011 by sebrof

[Victor Vectis]

Gloat while you may.

 

The country cannot afford to support the parasite class for ever,

 

Oh dear, oh, dear, oh dear.

 

Do I detect a touch of the green eyed monster here?

 

Jealousy is such an ugly emotion!

 

So who teaches/taught your kids then? (assuming you have any) Parasites?

 

Thats a nice way of showing your offspring how much you respect their teachers, innit.

 

SAM

Ryde

IOW

 

Go on, guess how I earn my living.........................

[carlt]

 

Your advice would carry more weight if you led by example.

 

If you could quote where I have slagged anyone off I'm happy to remove the post.I've said this before and I'm still awaiting an example.

 

As far as the public vs. private sector goes, as I've said, they both need each other and, if state subsidy of the private sector suddenly ended there would be chaos and a lot of fat cats punishing private sector workers, in order to maintain their wealth.

 

Oh dear, oh, dear, oh dear.

 

Do I detect a touch of the green eyed monster here?

 

Jealousy is such an ugly emotion!

 

I suspect forbes is afraid to say what he did/does for a living.

Edited October 2, 2011 by carlt

[Blackrat]

[/color]

 

Depends on wether the 4.5% inflation rate is RPI or CPI? If it's RPI then afraid your increase will about 1% less as it's now based on CPI.

 

 

All Government Pensions are now based on CPI. So like David my Police pension will go up by 4.5% in April.

[Blackrat]

Gloat while you may.

 

People whose salaries are paid for by tax-payers are now paid more than those in the productive (private) sector; they usually retire earlier; they have larger, safe, index-linked pensions; they take longer holidays; they have much greater job security; they take much more time off sick; and they think they can go on bleeding the private sector dry ad infinitum.

 

Like their fellow rip-off merchants in Greece, they are in for a rude awakening. The country cannot afford to support the parasite class for ever, and given that even the Labour Party hierarchy acknowledge this, the come-uppance of our so-called civil servants cannot be far away.

 

Public sector pension cuts are going to happen. Boasting about your undeserved (I mean that generally) good fortune on the internet will only stiffen the resolve of those who are determined to reduce the massive and unsustainable cost of public servants' pensions.

 

 

People go on about Police pensions being so good. What they fail to remember or were unaware of was that we paid for them.

 

A minimum of 11% of salary each month went towards your pension, compared to some Civil Servants who only contributed 3% each month, and it is now them who are complaining that they are going to have to pay more, about time.

 

So please don't tar all of us with the same brush.

[David Schweizer]

Perhaps Mr Schweitzer could stop gloating about his pension, and his public sector colleagues could stop striking. At a time when so many people are seeing their incomes reduced, his complacent "I'm all right, Jack" attitude strikes a rather sour note. Hence my response.

First of all I was not gloating, as you put it. I only said it once, and have not repeated it, so why the demand that I should stop when I have already stopped. I said (only once!):-

 

For me it is not all bad news, as it means that my Local Government pension will increase by 4.5% next year.

There was no suggestion of "I'm all right Jack" but unfortunately you have such an embittered mind that you cannot see reason beacause of the log on your shoulder. I was merely pointing out that there can be a positive side to CPI linking as well as a negative side, in fact I got my figures wrong because the present Government have put a 3% (I think) cap on Local Government pension increases.

 

Why have final salary schemes disappeared? Because G Brown started taxing them.

Really? So why have Local Government Pension Index Linked Pensions always been taxed? You do talk a lot of ill informed rubbish.

 

Finally, if you must continue to quote my name, please get the spelling correct. There is no "t" in my surname, My family are from Switzerland, not Germany or Austria. It may be insignificant to you, but it is important to me and my family.

Edited October 2, 2011 by David Schweizer

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

Which bit, Tony?

 

By not being specific, you are liable to be accused of sweeping generalisations.

 

 

 

 

 

Seb - your rant sounds as if it is based on nothing else than petty minded jealousy that some people have something that you do not.

 

If you can't grasp the very simple bit you are generalising about let me help - you cannot lump all public sector workers in with the same as the highest earners in differing sectors - pensions and terms and conditions can vary enormously so for example a nursing assistant retiring cannot expect any where near the same level of pension entitlement (contributions and salaries being a given factor that causes a differential of course) as some of the most very senior grades in the civil service for example.

 

So if you are going to try and come across as anything other than someone burned up with envy try and at least get some of the basics right.

 

 

 

..

Edited October 2, 2011 by MJG

[Neil2]

I try not to get involved with these ping pong type threads but for what it's worth...

 

The real issue with local gov and civil service pensions is that as successive governments have tried to "get tough" with the public sector the management of these organisations have slashed their revenue budgets by using early retirement and voluntary redundancy schemes on a huge scale. There is an immediate drop in revenue expenditure but bacause people are living longer these days it is imposing a massive strain on the public sector superannuation funds. I know of people who have been drawing their full pension ie 40 years worth, since their early 50's, in one extreme case since he was 49.

 

This is still going on, by the way.

 

As you will guess, these lucky individuals were usually rubbish at their job, or universally unpopular, or good friends with their GP... (i am not joking, had 25 years first hand experience of it)

 

If someone survives a working lifetime in the public secor they deserve a decent pension, but the fact is the life is being sucked out of the system by people who are reaping the benefits but have not contributed their fair share in either cash terms or hard work. It is a national scandal and incidentally one of the main reasons why Greece is in such a mess - their system is even slacker than ours.

[BlueStringPudding]

Is it really so bad?

 

We have just paid our renewal, £287 for 12 months (rivers only). For that price i dont think we can really complain at the service and facilities we recieve. Free visitor moorings, free showers, free toilets, free lock keeper service (well actually that costs us a bottle of Bud each time we lock through but thats another story ) and reasonably well maintained strucures and waterways.

 

This year unfortunately we have been plauged with weed problems but in fairness to BW they cant stop the weed growing and they have had a fair attempt at clearing it.

 

We are happy with the service we get for our money and a 6% rise isnt neccessarily going to break the bank.

 

Mine's nearer £800 for 12 months. So 6% is going to be noticeable.

[Victor Vectis]

I suspect he is afraid to say what he did/does for a living.

 

There is a big clue in the post......................

 

If you can't work it out perhaps you need to GO BACK TO SCHOOL (hint hint)

 

Honestly, irony is wasted on some people.

 

Or if you need another clue try consulting the Year 10 lad who told my Head of Department to "F*** O**" in one of my lessons last week

 

SAM

Ryde

IOW

 

Off to the beach for a stroll in a minute

[Guest]

I know of people who have been drawing their full pension ie 40 years worth, since their early 50's, in one extreme case since he was 49.

 

What sector? - can't be the NHS because if you draw before your retirement age your pension is 'actuarially reduced' to account for the fact you are drawing it early and haven't made your full contributions.

 

I don't know about other sectors. such as the civil service or LG...

 

 

ed coz I couldn't spell actu er actuaril :wacko: - corrected now

Edited October 2, 2011 by MJG

[David Schweizer]

I try not to get involved with these ping pong type threads but for what it's worth...

 

The real issue with local gov and civil service pensions is that as successive governments have tried to "get tough" with the public sector the management of these organisations have slashed their revenue budgets by using early retirement and voluntary redundancy schemes on a huge scale. There is an immediate drop in revenue expenditure but bacause people are living longer these days it is imposing a massive strain on the public sector superannuation funds. I know of people who have been drawing their full pension ie 40 years worth, since their early 50's, in one extreme case since he was 49.

 

This is still going on, by the way.

 

As you will guess, these lucky individuals were usually rubbish at their job, or universally unpopular, or good friends with their GP... (i am not joking, had 25 years first hand experience of it)

 

If someone survives a working lifetime in the public secor they deserve a decent pension, but the fact is the life is being sucked out of the system by people who are reaping the benefits but have not contributed their fair share in either cash terms or hard work. It is a national scandal and incidentally one of the main reasons why Greece is in such a mess - their system is even slacker than ours.

I agree with your assesment about redundancies and early retirement being used to reduce Local Authority staffing levels, but some of your examples perhaps require some explanation. It has never been possible to receive a Local Government Pension under redundancy arrangements before the age of 50 years old (55 nowadays), and you do not get any index linked pension increases for the first five years. If your friend retired at 49 they must have been retired on Ill Health grounds where the rules are different.

 

The arrangements where up to 10 years pension enhancement could be applied was under Local Govermnent Re-Organizatuion rules, and only applied for two years after the changeover date. To get 40 years pension at the age of fifty means that the employee would need to have been in the scheme for a minimum of thirty years

 

I know of no one who has suceeded in getting any such enhancements in recent years, and it also needs to be pointed out (just in case some biggots have not grasped it), that although it is called a "Final Salary Scheme", 40 years pension is actually only half of the employee's final salary, and it cannot be increased beyond this level.

Edited October 2, 2011 by David Schweizer

[cotswoldsman]

Had G Brown not taken responsibility for bank supervision away from the Bank of England, and given it to a quango that knew nothing about anything, it is arguable that the excesses you describe would not have occurred.

 

 

 

Not quite sure where to start on your normal biased post. Deregulation of the Banks but more important of The Stockmarket was "The Big Bang" of 1986 under Thatcher regulations were further reduced by Major.

 

 

 

Now, it's convenient for your argument to select three years out of the past 100 when major British banks needed tax-payer funds - which by the way, will be repaid in due course. The rest of the time the banks you mention have contributed massively to employment, to exports, to the economy, and to tax receipts.

 

 

 

Nothing is repaid until it is paid. I could have found plenty of other examples of the taxpayer subsidising private business but life is to short.

 

 

 

As for pensions, there are now almost no final-salary, index-linked pension schemes left as far as people working in the private sector are concerned. If your old company still has a final-salary scheme, then it is most unusual. It is more likely that the scheme has, at the very least, been closed to new entrants. Existing pensioners, like yourself, are OK, provided that the company you used to work for is still able to support it.

 

And I rather doubt that your pension is fully indexed-linked. Take a look at the small print, and if it is like the vast majority you will find that rises are capped, often at 5%, or even 3%.

 

 

 

Not sure what you know about my pension but it is fully indexed linked. My Daughter and Son are both in final salary pensions, and yes my old company still does final salary pension.

 

 

Why did we have a property bubble? Because G Brown encouraged it.

 

Notice a common theme?

 

 

 

 

 

Well one common theme seems to be Thatcher you seem to forget the property slump under Thatcher when more houses were repossessed than at any other time in modern history.

[AJLintern]

Don't forget that public sector workers pay tax too... The decent pension was to make up for the lower wage compared with a similar private sector position.

[carlt]

There is a big clue in the post......................

 

If you can't work it out perhaps you need to GO BACK TO SCHOOL (hint hint)

 

Honestly, irony is wasted on some people.

 

Or if you need another clue try consulting the Year 10 lad who told my Head of Department to "F*** O**" in one of my lessons last week

 

SAM

Ryde

IOW

 

Off to the beach for a stroll in a minute

I was talking to you, about Forbes....

 

Apparently education is not just wasted on the pupils.

[sebrof]

=

Really? So why have Local Government Pension Index Linked Pensions always been taxed? You do talk a lot of ill informed rubbish.

 

Do get your facts right, old chap.

 

Pension payments have always been taxed. It's the income received by the pension funds that G Brown started taxing. And that mainly applies to private sector pensions, because most government pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no fund.

 

Finally, if you must continue to quote my name, please get the spelling correct. There is no "t" in my surname, My family are from Switzerland, not Germany or Austria. It may be insignificant to you, but it is important to me and my family.

 

I apologise profoundly for that. Schweizer, Schweizer, Schweizer. I think I've got it now. :-) I was thinking of Albert, not a bad man to be confused with.

 

Seb - your rant sounds as if it is based on nothing else than petty minded jealousy that some people have something that you do not.

 

If you can't grasp the very simple bit you are generalising about let me help - you cannot lump all public sector workers in with the same as the highest earners in differing sectors - pensions and terms and conditions can vary enormously so for example a nursing assistant retiring cannot expect any where near the same level of pension entitlement (contributions and salaries being a given factor that causes a differential of course) as some of the most very senior grades in the civil service for example.

 

So if you are going to try and come across as anything other than someone burned up with envy try and at least get some of the basics right.

 

 

Is that it?

 

You think I don't know that people at different levels get different pensions?

 

Get back under your stone, old chap.