Council Tax Freeze

[Lamia]

"Wow! Sorry you think I am such a sponger. Maybe we shouldn't be paid either."

Only stating the facts.

I just got paid off from offshore I'm sure public sector employees will be happy to put their hands in their pockets to keep my wages going and help with my pension too.

I could take that argument apart but there is clearly no point because you have already decided to let them manipulate you down the divided and conquer route and I am not as stupid as to go there but....

If Local Government is such a cushy number why not get a job there then. It always makes me laugh how people go on about how much better public sector workers have it but don't chose to work there hmmm no idea why that might be.

[antidote]

@Lamia.

I'm still waiting for you to take any argument apart.

I don't want to take a job with the council just because its easy or if I did I wouldn't get one because in my neck of the woods you have to be connected, if you know what I mean.

This is not a case of divide and conquer, it's more to do with what the local council does with the money I already pay. I don't mind paying for front line services, but I do grudge paying for non jobs in the council and by that I mean from top to bottom.

I like many on here have a good few friends who work in the council, in the offices and on the maintenance departments. I even had a friend who was the chauffer for the provost and I know a lot of shenanigans they get up to.

I used to drink (he was on soft drinks) with a mate on a Saturday night who was actually on standby and the cash he was on was unbelievable, he retired at 55.

My point is that public service workers have to accept that jobs loses are inevitable and that councils just can't go and put up taxes to pay for their luxuries when it suits them. People just don't have that kind of money nowadays.

I do accept that their are workers who actually do a fair days work, but going by my experiences they are a minority.

[Orraloon]

I could take that argument apart but there is clearly no point because you have already decided to let them manipulate you down the divided and conquer route and I am not as stupid as to go there but....

If Local Government is such a cushy number why not get a job there then. It always makes me laugh how people go on about how much better public sector workers have it but don't chose to work there hmmm no idea why that might be.

Totally agree. The folk who moan about other folks pensions are usually just doing so out of a mixture of jealousy and ignorance. They clearly don't understand how pensions work. Nobody gives folk a pension just out of the kindness of their hearts. Every single penny has to be earned.

[Wine bibber]

I could take that argument apart but there is clearly no point because you have already decided to let them manipulate you down the divided and conquer route and I am not as stupid as to go there but....

If Local Government is such a cushy number why not get a job there then. It always makes me laugh how people go on about how much better public sector workers have it but don't chose to work there hmmm no idea why that might be.

Your statement is typical of individuals who work for councils.Its a closed shop.Practically the only way you can get a job with a council is if you know someone in middle to upper management .Most positions go to employees who already work for the public sector .They have to advertise positions by law to the wider public but we know who is getting the job.

Most people would give their right arm to work for a council .You should try working in the private sector ,i don't think you would be laughing then

[Parklife]

I went for an interview with Falkirk Council once I was over qualified for the job and still didn't get it. THe guy who interviewed me was a cock and went in the huff at the end of the interview when i jokingly asked him when i started.

Doesn't add anything to the debate though.

[Auld_Reekie]

I went for an interview with Falkirk Council once I was over qualified for the job and still didn't get it. THe guy who interviewed me was a cock and went in the huff at the end of the interview when i jokingly asked him when i started.

[antidote]

"Totally agree. The folk who moan about other folks pensions are usually just doing so out of a mixture of jealousy and ignorance. They clearly don't understand how pensions work. Nobody gives folk a pension just out of the kindness of their hearts. Every single penny has to be earned."

Let's make one thing clear! I have no problem with anyone having a good pension. As a local taxpayer, I have a problem with having to pay for that pension through my taxes.
Councils are topping up their own pensions with taxpayers money. Is that how it works?

You've obviously not seen the links to public pensions black hole I have posted.

Here's another one, have a good read. It looks as though this is a good reason why were getting cuts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9896822/More-than-half-council-tax-swallowed-up-by-pensions.html

[Lamia]

Some extremely ignorant people on this thread. I love the my friend said this my friend said that justification for the utter falsehoods being spouted.

As I said so many people allowing themselves to be manipulated by the divide and conquer agenda. I would be embarrassed to show that I was that easily controled

[antidote]

As you will see from my links I am telling it as it is, not through ignorance.

There's no divide and conquer when my and everyone else's taxpaying money is going on subsidising people in their jobs and none jobs, then we have to suffer cuts in services because council leaders prefer to spend our money on their own luxury projects.

I can assure you I have had friends/neighbours who have said/done all the things and more that I have quoted on here.

Sorry, but your deflection only goes to prove most points put forward by comments on here.

Not once have you countered any of the facts that have been put forward on here from me or others.

[Orraloon]

"Totally agree. The folk who moan about other folks pensions are usually just doing so out of a mixture of jealousy and ignorance. They clearly don't understand how pensions work. Nobody gives folk a pension just out of the kindness of their hearts. Every single penny has to be earned."

Let's make one thing clear! I have no problem with anyone having a good pension. As a local taxpayer, I have a problem with having to pay for that pension through my taxes.

Councils are topping up their own pensions with taxpayers money. Is that how it works?

You've obviously not seen the links to public pensions black hole I have posted.

Here's another one, have a good read. It looks as though this is a good reason why were getting cuts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9896822/More-than-half-council-tax-swallowed-up-by-pensions.html

If you and other taxpayers are not going to pay for those pensions then who is? Do you think that governments (local and UK) should just say to pensioners "Sorry there is no money left so you are not getting your pension any more"?

Pensions are part of the re-numeration package agreed between employer and employee and, to lots of folk, is just as important as the salary which goes with the job. A lot of folk decide to stay in a job with a lower salary, than they could get elsewhere, because the pension scheme is important to them. It would be like saying " We think we have paid you too much for that job you have been doing for the last 30 years so you need to give us £100,000 back".

Are you in a pension scheme? Who do you think is going to pay for your pension?

[Lamia]

If you and other taxpayers are not going to pay for those pensions then who is? Do you think that governments (local and UK) should just say to pensioners "Sorry there is no money left so you are not getting your pension any more"?

Pensions are part of the re-numeration package agreed between employer and employee and, to lots of folk, is just as important as the salary which goes with the job. A lot of folk decide to stay in a job with a lower salary, than they could get elsewhere, because the pension scheme is important to them. It would be like saying " We think we have paid you too much for that job you have been doing for the last 30 years so you need to give us £100,000 back".

Are you in a pension scheme? Who do you think is going to pay for your pension?

He is clearly a raging Tory.

[antidote]

@Orraloon. So getting back to the main point. Why should the tax payer subsidise someone in their job and by your admission gilt edged pension?

I'm a tax payer and I don't want to subsidise anyone in a life of luxury especially as hard pressed families are struggling to eat, clothe themselves and heat their homes.

Now I have proven to you that councils are using tax payers money to top up their pension pots while they carry out front line cuts to the needy and the poor, apart from that being un-socialist, it is down right greed of the highest order.

Whether I've got a pension or not is irrelevant. If I had one then I wouldn't expect the tax payer to subsidise me and if I didn't, I would make sure I was comfortable in my old age by securing an income from other resources such as investments etc.

A private pension does not get the tax payer to bail it out.

Oh (for you Lamia) someone I grew up with works as a plumber with Falkirk council and he was on £40k+ a year way back in 1998. Low wages?

@Lamia. No not a tory, just someone who doesn't want to subsidise workers and non workers in their job while the poor and needy go without.

If anyone is a tory then it must be you because you want the poor and the needy to pay your salary and the salaries of a bloated workforce (middle managers above) with increased CT or to do without services.

Edited March 7, 2015 by antidote

[Lamia]

@Lamia. No not a tory, just someone who doesn't want to subsidise workers and non workers in their job while the poor and needy go without.

If anyone is a tory then it must be you because you want the poor and the needy to pay your salary and the salaries of a bloated workforce (middle managers above) with increased CT or to do without services.

Now I know you are on the windup because no one is that stupid

[Mee]

The problem with the public sector pensions it's that X number of years ago they negotiated and decided that everyone can retire at 55 on X% of their final salary (every case different, can't be feked looking up the numbers)

They then did absolutely nothing to fund this promise which was made on bad actuarial numbers that didn't take into count increasing life expectancy etc.

So now there are lots of people waiting for their money which doesn't exist so the only way they can find it is out of current taxation either by increasing taxes or cutting services.

If this was a private company they would go bankrupt and the pensioners and fill waiting on their pension would be getting nothing.

I don't know what they should do about this but it is not sustainable.

Regarding public sector workers getting paid less. Allot of councils are implementing the living wage now so that's no longer the case.

[AberdeenAngus]

The problem with the public sector pensions it's that X number of years ago they negotiated and decided that everyone can retire at 55 on X% of their final salary (every case different, can't be feked looking up the numbers)

They then did absolutely nothing to fund this promise which was made on bad actuarial numbers that didn't take into count increasing life expectancy etc.

So now there are lots of people waiting for their money which doesn't exist so the only way they can find it is out of current taxation either by increasing taxes or cutting services.

If this was a private company they would go bankrupt and the pensioners and fill waiting on their pension would be getting nothing.

I don't know what they should do about this but it is not sustainable.

Regarding public sector workers getting paid less. Allot of councils are implementing the living wage now so that's no longer the case.

That is not true across the public sector.

A number of schemes have been changed with huge increases in costs to member who will have to work a lot longer for much less of a pension.

Disappointed to see so many Daily Mail story believers in this thread.

I can't speak for local government pensions in detail but please don't fall the hysterical 'gold plated' nonsense. Pretty sure I read somewhere recently that the average public sector pension being paid was under £6k per year.

As for the comment on the living wage - is this where we are at now? A race to pay everyone as little as possible?

[Mee]

From Glasgow City councils last years financial report https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=24455&p=0

Definedbenefitpensionscheme

Council employees are entitled to join the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) or, for teachers, the Scottish Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme (STSS). The STSS is accounted for as a defined contribution scheme and, therefore, the Financial Statements show the amounts contributed by the council to the scheme in the year. The LGPS is a defined benefit scheme, requiring an actuarial assessment of the council’s overall assets and liabilities to be included in the Financial Statements. The 2013/14 actuarial report shows a £178 million increase in the net pension liability, which is £1,302 million as at 31 March 2014. This is principally because financial assumptions at 31 March 2014 are less favourable than they were at 31 March 2013, and despite improvements in investment returns this has still resulted in an increase in the net liability.

You can see in the balance sheet page 11 that in this year the amount of money raised through council tax in glasgow was £179,008,000 so almost every penny raised in council tax has basically gone straight to the pension liability.

My comment on the living wage was to refute the claim that public sector employees are paid less, its simply not true and if you factor in their indirect benefits then it really really isn't true. I would like everyone to be on an excellent salary and benefits, my willingness to pay for the public sector to have much better conditions than i have is limited.

And heres another point that will mean that public sector wages will be going up very slowly in the future

Item

Uncertainties

Effect if results differ from assumptions

Pensions liability

Estimation of the net liability to pay pensions depends on a number of complex judgements relating to the discount rate used, the rate at which pay is projected to increase, changes in retirement ages, mortality rates and expected returns on pension fund assets. Strathclyde Pension Fund has engaged a firm of consulting actuaries to provide expert advice about the assumptions to be applied.

The effects on the net pension liability of changes in individual assumptions can be measured. The actuary has estimated that a 0.5% decrease in the real discount rate would result in an increase to the pension liability of £448.1 million. Similarly, a 0.5% increase in the rate of salary increase and pension increase rates would increase the liability by

£179.0 million and £329.4 million respectively. In terms of life expectancy, an increase of 1 year would equate to an increased liability of £115.7 million.

A 6,000 a year pension in a defined contribution scheme would require 100,000 if retiring at 60. So in the region of 200 a month from the age of 20 to 60 saved up. (ignoring compounding, inflation etc)

[AberdeenAngus]

From Glasgow City councils last years financial report https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=24455&p=0

You can see in the balance sheet page 11 that in this year the amount of money raised through council tax in glasgow was £179,008,000 so almost every penny raised in council tax has basically gone straight to the pension liability.

My comment on the living wage was to refute the claim that public sector employees are paid less, its simply not true and if you factor in their indirect benefits then it really really isn't true. I would like everyone to be on an excellent salary and benefits, my willingness to pay for the public sector to have much better conditions than i have is limited.

And heres another point that will mean that public sector wages will be going up very slowly in the future

Item

Uncertainties

Effect if results differ from assumptions

Pensions liability

Estimation of the net liability to pay pensions depends on a number of complex judgements relating to the discount rate used, the rate at which pay is projected to increase, changes in retirement ages, mortality rates and expected returns on pension fund assets. Strathclyde Pension Fund has engaged a firm of consulting actuaries to provide expert advice about the assumptions to be applied.

The effects on the net pension liability of changes in individual assumptions can be measured. The actuary has estimated that a 0.5% decrease in the real discount rate would result in an increase to the pension liability of £448.1 million. Similarly, a 0.5% increase in the rate of salary increase and pension increase rates would increase the liability by

£179.0 million and £329.4 million respectively. In terms of life expectancy, an increase of 1 year would equate to an increased liability of £115.7 million.

A 6,000 a year pension in a defined contribution scheme would require 100,000 if retiring at 60. So in the region of 200 a month from the age of 20 to 60 saved up. (ignoring compounding, inflation etc)

So why is the public sector not THE job which everyone wants?

Your claim about wages is absolute tosh.

For any qualified person working in the private sector will in at least 95% of cases will prove far more lucrative.

I don't and never have worked in local government but I know a fair few who do and without exception their pay and other terms and conditions are very poor and getting worse.

Does this bitterness towards the public sector extend to doctors, nurses, the Fire Service, police, ambulance service and armed forces? - This is a general question and not aimed any 1 individual.

Maybe if folk and companies didn't try and evade or avoid paying their fair share of taxes then we'd would all be better off with properly funded high class public services where employees would be reasonably treated and rewarded instead of being blamed for the greed of others.

[Mee]

So why is the public sector not THE job which everyone wants?

Your claim about wages is absolute tosh.

For any qualified person working in the private sector will in at least 95% of cases will prove far more lucrative.

I don't and never have worked in local government but I know a fair few who do and without exception their pay and other terms and conditions are very poor and getting worse.

Does this bitterness towards the public sector extend to doctors, nurses, the Fire Service, police, ambulance service and armed forces? - This is a general question and not aimed any 1 individual.

Maybe if folk and companies didn't try and evade or avoid paying their fair share of taxes then we'd would all be better off with properly funded high class public services where employees would be reasonably treated and rewarded instead of being blamed for the greed of others.

I am not bitter towards the public service, i just find it interesting that they feel so hard done by all the time when almost all the data suggest that they have a good deal.

Regarding my comment being tosh....

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_261716.pdf

The earnings model used in this article estimated that after accounting for: gender, age, occupation, the region that the job is located in, and factoring in qualifications, the public sector, on average, earned 8.2 per cent more per hour (excluding overtime) than the private sector in 2011.

However, the pay gap may also be explained by other characteristics that were not included in the regression model because they are not collected on the ASHE or LFS datasets. For example, ASHE does not collect earnings data on self-employed workers. This excludes some of the highest paid workers, and also some of the lowest paid workers. Further, the timing of the survey in April means that only bonus payments related to April are included, outside of the main bonus season which is normally January to March. These factors would account for some but not all of the difference.

A more recent report http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_355119.pdf

• In April 2013 it is estimated that on average the pay of the public sector was between 2.2% and 3.1% higher after adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers

• The average pay difference in favour of the public sector has narrowed since the year 2010, which in part reflects the restraints on public sector pay over this period

[scotlad]

That is not true across the public sector.

A number of schemes have been changed with huge increases in costs to member who will have to work a lot longer for much less of a pension.

Disappointed to see so many Daily Mail story believers in this thread.

I can't speak for local government pensions in detail but please don't fall the hysterical 'gold plated' nonsense. Pretty sure I read somewhere recently that the average public sector pension being paid was under £6k per year.

As for the comment on the living wage - is this where we are at now? A race to pay everyone as little as possible?

Good post.

The £6k p.a figure sounds about right. I not sure of the deal with local government but the civil service pension scheme, of which I am a member, has undergone a couple of changes over the last 12 years. In short, I am now contributing more of my earnings and I stand to gain less.

The civil service used to have a mandatory retirement age of 60. The government removed that in the late '90s but up until a couple of years ago it was rare to see anyone over 60 still working; purely going by where I work it is now much more common. This 'gold plated pensions' line is nonsense, as far as the overwhelming majority of workers are concerned.

The living wage, that thing that public sector employees should apparently be oh-so grateful that they now receive (well, most of them anyway), is currently £7.85 per hour. £7.85. How many of those criticising public service wages and pensions would get out of bed to work for that? I know of admin staff in the civil service chucking it to go and work in supermarkets because the pay isn't much different and the hassle a lot less.

Anyway, to go back on topic for a moment, I find it is amazing that the council tax is still here. It was originally devised on the back of a fag packet by John Major's Tory government by means of a compromise after the failure of the poll tax (or, to put it another way, a riot control device). There has to be a fairer, more efficient means for local authorities to raise funds.

[phart]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

According to oxfam 50% of the wealth is held by 1% of the people, now this is globally, however i imagine the trend will continue if you zoom in, although perhaps with not the same crazy ratio.

Not sure why everyone is running around looking at taking money out of the tiny pot that serves most people, instead of looking at the massive pot that services a few.

Edited March 7, 2015 by phart

[Lamia]

You should try adding up how many people you are talking about. I assume you agree LA need managers so even if you want to cut down on these wages you think are so high you won't make the full savings on all these post. Then have a look at the savings councils have been having to make and I think you will find that even if you did do away with all the higher management posts the amount saved would pale into insignificance in comparison to the funding cuts.

I would be interested to know how much you think someone should be paid for running a LA with all the services, staff and multiple challenges this job attracts?

Have you done the calculation yet? You also didn't answer the question about what you think senior management should be paid.

As a general observation I love the fact that the first people to complain about public sector jobs being over paid, cushy etc are the last people who would ever apply for a job there and will never admit it is because they get much better pay in the job they do.

Love the utterly false excuses on this thread though - just shows how desperate people are to admit the real truth.

[Orraloon]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

According to oxfam 50% of the wealth is held by 1% of the people, now this is globally, however i imagine the trend will continue if you zoom in, although perhaps with not the same crazy ratio.

Not sure why everyone is running around looking at taking money out of the tiny pot that serves most people, instead of looking at the massive pot that services a few.

As Lamia says, it's the old divide and conquer strategy. Get all the poor folk at the bottom running around arguing with each other and fighting for the scraps that the super wealthy so generously allow us to have. It helps them to distract our attention away from what the real issues are. The ever increasing wealth gap between rich and poor just gets bigger and bigger.

[Lamia]

As Lamia says, it's the old divide and conquer strategy. Get all the poor folk at the bottom running around arguing with each other and fighting for the scraps that the super wealthy so generously allow us to have. It helps them to distract our attention away from what the real issues are. The ever increasing wealth gap between rich and poor just gets bigger and bigger.

[TartanJon]

I think all rank and file cooncil workers are sound but the folk who run it are real yins.

Up the Lamia!!! (That disnae sound right)