Someone I know in the public sector told me that they recently attended a union meeting where the speaker informed members that one long term option the government was considering was to remove the state pension for those who had an occupational pension - and I understand that this wasn't something new that had just been dreamt up by the current coalition but had been debated with the previous government too. Scaremongering or a viable option?

I have not heard this . Not sure if I agree or not.
Again those that gain would be those who have never contributed to a pension in their lives and spent the funds in the Costa Blanca.

Also suppose your occupational pension was less than the state pension?

Whilst I agree the days of the state gold plated pension must be over , has gone in private sector. If people contribute to their own pensions with no subsidy from state or employer they should be entitled to state pension as well. This is under assumption you have worked and contributed to minimum of 30 years contributions.

What is "the state gold plated pension"?

The "state pension" usually refers to what people draw at 60-65 resulting from the NI contribution system.

What does "gold plated" mean? The repetition of this adjectival metaphor is clearly intended for effect, but in the end is a rather lazy way of developing an argument.

Most public sector pensions are contributory in the same way that private sector pensions are contributory. The civil service pension was non-contributory but this was reflected in lower pay. However, whatever the arrangements pay and pension are part of a salary-package, and really need to be look at like that. Where pensions were paid from stock market investment, then dramatic stock market collapse has undermined these. Where annuities are purchased, then the collapse in interest rates have affected these. The issue then is whether people with other pension arrangements should have their conditions worsened.

A more positive view would be to consider how those people who have lost out because of events well beyond their control might be supported and recompensed. The DIY pension approach hadn't worked in the past, largely because most people are not really paid enough to be able to save much, and the safety net was the workhouse. Proposing a return to a system which generates this at its end seems a tad misanthropic.

The gold plated state pension is the pension state workers get from state employees.

Apologies for not making that clear.

I'm not sure that Brian has got this right. The 'gold plated state pension' is paid for out of the taxes paid by all taxpayers, which of course does include state employees, and by increasing Government borrowing. Unfortunately, there is only so much money that can be extracted from taxpayers, and only so much Government borrowing that can be financed. I think Greece is early in the long list of Countries that will be finding this out aver the next few years.

confusion all round, but not helped by commentators in the press who want to suggest that the cause/cure of the current crisis in the public sector.

The application of 'gold plated' to pensions was used as a term of abuse, and the repeated use of it in these discussions is vectored in that direction.

The state pension is funded by NI payments - at least that was how it was set up originally.

Public sector pensions, like all occupational pensions, are effectively deferred pay. Salary and pension is part of the pay package, with employer and employee making contributions throughout a working life. It is mischievous to suggest that somehow people who work in the public sector are somehow to blame for the current crisis.

The comment about taxpayers and Government borrowing is rather odd. Big companies avoid paying vast amounts of tax. Very high earners, say over £150000 pa, only pay 50% tax. The government was able to find billions to go and bomb Libya. There are no hard and fast rules about what can be collected in tax and what can be borrowed, although successive governments have presented the economy as though it was similar to household budgeting, which it isn't. The way out of the current crisis will be through inflation - i.e. paying debt in reduced value pounds. The attack on the public sector (that is the NHS, schools, universities, public sector pensions etc) is simply politically motivated and has absolutely nothing to do with the international financial crisis.

Billions to bomb Libya ?
I believe costs about 250 million . However the pilots need to practice so would be costs if we had not taken part.
I read also that British aircraft had impressed foreign buyers and may result in a large export order to India.
So may end up on the profit side.

Whatever one says about the pensions for state employees , these are not sustainable in the modern era and have to be paid for by private sector workers whose average pay is less.

Confusion all round indeed!

When I referred to 'state pensions' I was referring to the pensions paid to pensioners who were previously state (Government, Local Authority etc) employees. Let's call them Public Employees. I'm happy not to use the term 'gold plated' if that upsets people.

I believe it is correct to say that the Old Age Pension (as distinct from the pension for Public Employees, was originally intended to be funded from NI contributions. That link has now been lost and NI is, effectively, just another form of tax levied on both employees and employers. The OAP has dwindled in real terms and I see little likelihood that it will become a substitute for an occupational pension in the forseeable future.

The fact is that the private sector has recognised that the final salary pension schemes of old are unaffordable and they have almost universally had to reduce benefits for existing employees and drastically reduce them for new employees. My understanding is that in the Public Sector, there is resistance to doing either of these things. I accept the argument that Pensions are a form of deferred salary, but one's future salary can never be guaranteed.

If Kipya wants us to suffer inflation as a means of solving our financial woes, then God Help Us. That will reduce the income of anyone whose pension is not index linked (ie the majority of those in the Private Sector) to virtually nothing whilst destroying the value of any savings they may have. Given that most can expect to have to live on their pension for many years now, that's a very worrying scenario.

I don't know how much the Libyan campaign will have cost us - but I don't think it is true to say the money has been found. I suspect it has added to Government borrowing and will also have to be paid for by future generations, just like the PFI debts. Certainly it has cost a great deal more than having the RAF sitting around - they don't fire off too many missiles in training - and I believe cruise missiles cost around £0.5m each.

It is a disgrace the Government has caved in to the trade union bullies.

I see the Unison ballot just announced
1.1 million members

For action about 240,000
Against about 70,000

Mandate about 22%. I expect they will claim a resounding victory.

Government should withdraw yesterdays shameful offer which puts the private sector ( who will have to pay for these pensions ) at a huge disadvantage

Brian,

There may be many Unison members who abstained because it does not apply ro them if they have chosen not to contribute to the LGPS scheme. Many do not join the scheme because they cannot afford to.

There's nothing like making it up as you go along, eh?

Brian quotes £250m for bombing using old data - or just making it up?

Andrewr says "The fact is that the private sector has recognised that the final salary pension schemes of old are unaffordable..." but one might question the notion here of "fact" and "unaffordable". Pensions are not "unaffordable" per se. It is simply that firms have made decisions not to support them. Part of the problem has been the volatile stock market, but there are other ways to make pension provision. Usually there are lots of alternatives. "Unaffordable" is a sales pitch, a strategic construction, but not an essential truth.

Similarly, when, precisely, did I say I wanted inflation? Perhaps Andrewr is just making it up?

Which brings me back to Brian. The government (elected by considerably less than 50% of the electorate) decided, unilaterally, to cut the public sector: jobs, pay and pensions. Unsurprisingly many people thought that was rather unfair and objected. It is a bit specious to imply that people who didn't vote in a union ballot agreed that they should have their pay, pension or jobs cut.

Disagreements are played out in a number of different ways. Governments take unilateral action and declare TINA (there is no alternative). Trade unions threaten 'industrial action'. It is part of the theatre of negotiation - and of course Brian is simply being theatrical by using adjectives such as "shameful" and "bullying". This is just heckling rather than developing an argument, but as I have said before, it does come over as a tad misanthropic.

The idea that the "private sector" pays for the "public sector" is rather meaningless, but as this post started out, there's nothing like making it up.

Kipya
All pension experts say the new proposal still leaves the private sector in another world.

The best option would be for all employers to cease any provision for pensions and everyone should make their own arrangements as most private sector people are now having to.

22% is a joke . They should make it only legal if over 50%

If strike goes ahead offer should be withdrawn.

The point about elections is that the 'winner' is based on who actually votes, not who could vote. If the 50% rule applied to local government elelctions then in the main no councils could be elected.

One problem with low turnouts is that anyone can say what a non-cast vote signifies without any fear of contradiction. We can just make it up. At the last General Election only 65.1% of the electorate voted. Obviously the rest were just too busy at work, but if they could have got to the polling station they would undoubtedly have voted for Gordon. You see, one can just make it up.

You have invented a 50% rule, but what actual difference would that make? In the last general elelction the Conservatives got 23% of the possible vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement, but they have still taken leadership of the government and have introduced some very unpopular measures. If I invent a 2/3 rule then the Conservative vote is "a joke".

Of course one can ask why people don't vote in elections, but generally this is not too clear, and currently there is no strategy to significantly increase turnout. We might observe the irony of Libya being bombed so that people there could not vote in elelctions.

Nevertheless, the struggle over pensions will run for quite a lot longer I think.

I did not use my vote in the ballot because it would be unfair for me to vote for a strike and not take part. I believe that many may not have voted because they do not contribute to the LGPS pension scheme.

Curiously there have been occasions when governments have been formed by the aprty that recived fewer votes than the opposition! But nobody objected then.

Personally I think the proposed changes are a change of terms and conditions, which cannot normally be forced on employees. The increases in contribution are effectively a pay cut, which is illegal.

It has happened to most private companies. They cannot change benefits up to the moment of change. No problem ceasing the scheme and starting a new one.

Government should show backbone to defend the poor private sector employees who will have to pay fot the state employers greedy pensions.Call an election

The coalition agreed that this parliament will run the full five years. So do not expect a snap election!

We pay for bankers' bonuses as well!