And what about outside Europe? There wil always be countries who will be wringing their hands in glee to get hold of all that tax revenue which otherwise they wouldn't be able to!

 

It's highly impractical for European firms to move away though. It would be difficult enough for an entire TNC to up sticks and relocate to Switzerland or Norway, let alone another continent.

You may be right on your private pension point but I hardly saw an outcry from the union's when Gordon Brown made several changes to the way pension rights were accrued in the private sector after he became Chancellor yet NOW the unions want public support? What many in the private sector can't understand is what is happening to the public sector has already happened to the private a decade before- perhspa they would be onto more of a winner if they campaigned to get private sector pensions up to the same standard as public pensions? And tell me how many of these union bosses are on final salary pensions- quite a few I can tell you.

 

As I say in my initial post you get more back from the bankers if they get a bonus than you would in corporation tax or if the company simply moved the money out of the UK. If that happned again we would all have to pay more.

 

Furthermore you mis- understood what I meant- I meant I didn't agree with what they were striking for- not that they were striking at all. Of course people can strike and it's their right to, but as a cause I don't agree with it. Threat of wide scale redundancies, pay freezes and other factors? oh that sounds like the private sector......

Gordon Brown didn't force employers to switch from a final salary scheme to a money purchase scheme. They made that decision themselves. Of course, they made sure that the executives kept their final salary schemes.

 

They made the change to cut costs. First, changes made by the Tories forced pension schemes to reduce the surpluses they had built up over the years. If they had been allowed to maintain that surplus, they would have been better able to ride out the stock market crash. Most companies, given the choice between improving benefits, reducing contributions or a combination of both chose to reduce their contributions, often to nil. Of course, where employers had been paying into the scheme, they continued to do so in most cases.

 

The problem was companies seemed to assume that they could stop paying into the scheme for ever. When those surpluses turned to hefty deficits they often resumed contributions but also switched to a money purchase scheme to keep their contributions lower than before.

 

Why is it that, when one set of employees get better benefits than others, Tories always respond by saying that the former's benefits should be reduced? Why not advocate levelling up for a change?

It's highly impractical for European firms to move away though. It would be difficult enough for an entire TNC to up sticks and relocate to Switzerland or Norway, let alone another continent.

As I understand it, I may be wrong, that they don't need to up sticks in their entirity, they just need to change their main country of residence, in short where they are registered, I believe they need a presence in that country, but in any eventuality, where there are millions of pounds at stake most companies would find a way around the tax problem, and you've got to remember the UK with it's massive banking sector would be hardest hit by such a move. I don't share the view that companies and the rich would just go "Hey ho, we'll just pay more of our money over to the taxman without getting our very expensive accountants to find a way out" It is a global market unfortunately.

Gordon Brown didn't force employers to switch from a final salary scheme to a money purchase scheme. They made that decision themselves. Of course, they made sure that the executives kept their final salary schemes.

 

They made the change to cut costs. First, changes made by the Tories forced pension schemes to reduce the surpluses they had built up over the years. If they had been allowed to maintain that surplus, they would have been better able to ride out the stock market crash. Most companies, given the choice between improving benefits, reducing contributions or a combination of both chose to reduce their contributions, often to nil. Of course, where employers had been paying into the scheme, they continued to do so in most cases.

 

The problem was companies seemed to assume that they could stop paying into the scheme for ever. When those surpluses turned to hefty deficits they often resumed contributions but also switched to a money purchase scheme to keep their contributions lower than before.

 

Why is it that, when one set of employees get better benefits than others, Tories always respond by saying that the former's benefits should be reduced? Why not advocate levelling up for a change?

No he didn't force but he allowed. Neither do I doubt that companies saw that as a get out jail free card. As for levelling up I've already made that point that had the unions been campaigning for that then both public sympathy and the chance of success would be considerably higher. Why is that Labour, who always make a virtue of equality, have allowed that inequality to persist for so long between sectors?

 

Neither parties hands are clean on this.

As I understand it, I may be wrong, that they don't need to up sticks in their entirity, they just need to change their main country of residence, in short where they are registered, I believe they need a presence in that country, but in any eventuality, where there are millions of pounds at stake most companies would find a way around the tax problem, and you've got to remember the UK with it's massive banking sector would be hardest hit by such a move. I don't share the view that companies and the rich would just go "Hey ho, we'll just pay more of our money over to the taxman without getting our very expensive accountants to find a way out" It is a global market unfortunately.

 

Changing your main country of residence means moving your headquarters, which you would imagine would be the workplace for their most highly paid (and therefore least dispensable) employees. Quite an ask to move them, you see how many BBC employees have complained about moving 200 miles up the road to Salford Quays.

As I understand it, I may be wrong, that they don't need to up sticks in their entirity, they just need to change their main country of residence, in short where they are registered, I believe they need a presence in that country, but in any eventuality, where there are millions of pounds at stake most companies would find a way around the tax problem, and you've got to remember the UK with it's massive banking sector would be hardest hit by such a move. I don't share the view that companies and the rich would just go "Hey ho, we'll just pay more of our money over to the taxman without getting our very expensive accountants to find a way out" It is a global market unfortunately.

You have to take into account that moves against tax havens don't have to be solely a revenue raising matter. If the tax base is increased then the rate of tax can be reduced.

No he didn't force but he allowed. Neither do I doubt that companies saw that as a get out jail free card. As for levelling up I've already made that point that had the unions been campaigning for that then both public sympathy and the chance of success would be considerably higher. Why is that Labour, who always make a virtue of equality, have allowed that inequality to persist for so long between sectors?

 

Neither parties hands are clean on this.

But it has also been pointed out that there wasn't much public sector unions could have done to "campaign against" changes in the private sector. That's not their job and it's not what their members pay their subs for.

 

Can you imagine the outcry from employers if Brown had tried to stop them switching to money purchase schemes? Given how quickly they generally caved in whenever the CBI gave Downing Street a call, there's no way Labour would have tried to do that. Companies would just have threatened either to close down the scheme altogether or relocate to another country.

But it has also been pointed out that there wasn't much public sector unions could have done to "campaign against" changes in the private sector. That's not their job and it's not what their members pay their subs for.

 

Can you imagine the outcry from employers if Brown had tried to stop them switching to money purchase schemes? Given how quickly they generally caved in whenever the CBI gave Downing Street a call, there's no way Labour would have tried to do that. Companies would just have threatened either to close down the scheme altogether or relocate to another country.

No it's not their job, they look after their members only, I get that, but then they don't seem to understand why support outside of their members is so lacking! Without public support they won't get their way.

 

Your last point is exactly my point to Charlie. In any event surely that is what Labour were MEANT to do- challange big business and make a fairer deal for the worker, union or not? That Brown was a slave to the banks and a Labour prime minister is unforgiveable, yet he realised the true paradox of socialism, in order to make government as large as possible it needs as much money as it can get, whether borrowed or taxed, if you want to do good with other people's money you first have to take it from them, he needed business revenues to undertake his mismanaged schemes and so couldnt stand up to them.

..And while Francis Maude dictates to Public Sector workers that they have to contribute more, get less and work til they're older....

 

£731k retirement pot for pension-slashing minister Francis Maude

http://nobodylikesatory.wordpress.com/2011...-francis-maude/

 

“The Tory minister ruthlessly slashing the pensions of millions of public sector workers could be in line to pocket a £731,000 retirement pot,” reports the Daily Mirror. “Francis Maude, 58, is among a number of Government ministers amassing vast, taxpayer-funded nest eggs. But while the millionaire can look forward to a potential £43,000-plus a year income in his old age, he is cutting schemes for nurses, teachers and public sector workers.

 

The shocking sum is almost eight times the average £5,600 civil service employee’s pot. Union chiefs yesterday branded Cabinet Office Minister Mr Maude and his well-to-do colleagues shameless hypocrites. Len McCluskey, of Unite, which calculated the figures, said: “A typical public sector worker would have to work almost three lifetimes to get a pension like many of the ministers who are attacking our public services.

 

“Unite supports good pensions for all workers including MPs. What we don’t support is a cabinet of millionaires attacking the pensions of the men and women who care for our sick, teach our children and keep our streets safe. It’s another example of how out of touch the Government is.” Mark Serwotka, of the civil service PCS union, added: “They’ll be completely untouched by their cuts.”

 

MPs can grow their pension pot by up to one 40th of their final salary – currently £65,738 – each year in return for putting in 11.9% of their wage packet. Senior ministers, who earn more, can also pay in at the same rate and receive one 40th of their total frontbench earnings on top of their Parliamentary pension.

 

Veteran Tory Mr Maude, who is masterminding the showdown with unions, earns about £98,700. He will have chalked up 27 years as an MP and eight as a minister during two spells in Parliament if he keeps his job until the next election in 2015. If he paid in at this top rate he would get a pension over £60,000, according to Unite. Payouts are limited to two-thirds of an MP’s salary but it still means he could get £43,825.

 

David Cameron has surrendered his Prime Minister’s pension, which is worth half of his final salary in the top job, but still benefits from the generous pay and perks. Contributing at the top rate, Mr Cameron – already worth an estimated £3million – would be entitled to £32,977 by 2015. His even richer side-kick George Osborne would get the same. It is almost six times the typical £5,600 public sector pension. Someone in a private scheme would have to save up more than half a million pounds.

 

Deputy PM Nick Clegg could retire on £26,403 a year if he quits Parliament at the next election. Mr Alexander would get £26,403 while Business Secretary and Lib Dem Vince Cable would take home £39,551.

 

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary busy demolishing the NHS, would pick up an identical amount if he opted for the top rate but a spokesman said last night he had chosen a lower one. Fellow Tory Eric Pickles, who has been inflicting brutal cuts on town halls across the country, could rack up £43,825.”

 

via Daily Mirror

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There really are not words adequate enough to describe the absolute hypocrisy of the likes of Francis Maude.... Utter VILE SCUMBAG.... <_<

 

And from The Morning Star....

 

Exposed: Pension axe ministers' hypocrisy

 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/co...iew/full/112271

 

State employees would have to work for 124 years to match the retirement payouts of Con-Dem ministers pushing savage cuts to public pensions, the Unite union revealed today.

 

Its "dossier of hypocrisy" exposed a stark contrast between leading members of the government and the retirement pots that await an average public-sector worker.

 

A host of Cabinet ministers can rest easy in the knowledge that they will get fat annual payouts if they step down at the end of the current Parliament in 2015.

 

Slash-and-burn Chancellor George Osborne would only have to work for a year and a half to earn an average public-sector pension of £5,600.

 

Tory "enforcer" Francis Maude and Lib Dem Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander, who are leading government attempts to force union members to swallow public-sector pension changes that will see people work longer, pay in more and receive less, were among the top hypocrites singled out by Unite.

 

To match Mr Alexander's pension a typical public-sector worker would have to do a life's work twice over, its dossier revealed.

 

That rises to three lifetimes to match Mr Maude's retirement pot.

A local government employee would have to work a staggering 124 years to equal Tory Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles's pension were he to retire in 2015.

 

And Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's pension is worth almost 10 times that of an average NHS employee despite the government's repeated claim that ordinary workers are revelling in "gold-plated" pensions.

 

Unite said that ministers' final pensions could actually be worth much more.

 

Its calculations didn't take into account contributions beyond 2015 or income tied to business arrangements or inherited wealth.

 

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said the findings showed how out of touch the government is.

 

"Ministers who can retire on tens of thousands a year are slashing the pensions of workers who stand to get a few thousand a year and then have the nerve to call them gold-plated," he said.

 

"Unite supports good pensions for all workers including MPs, what we don't support is a Cabinet of millionaires attacking the very modest pensions of the men and women who care for our sick, teach our children and keep our streets safe."

 

Mr McCluskey told ministers to start "acting responsibly by getting back round the negotiating table to talk seriously about a fair deal for public-sector workers."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think this proves that ALL British workers, whether public or private sector, need to take to the streets next Wednesday.....

One problem with ministers' pensions is that the rules are more attuned to the days when a minister might leave office in their seventies and so receive a pension for a relatively short time. Now an ex-minister may well be in their early sixties or even younger. Not only does that mean their pension is paid for a lot longer but they also have more opportunity to supplement that income while they are still young enough to do so. The rules really need to change to reflect that.

On that one you get no argument from me- they can afford their own private pensions certainly!!

On that one you get no argument from me- they can afford their own private pensions certainly!!

They do pay in to their pension scheme. Shortly before the election their contributions were increased.

I mean WHOLY private pension!

I mean WHOLY private pension!

Why? They are employed by the state. Why shouldn't the state - as their employer - make a contribution to their pension? Do you think bankers should be wholly responsible for their own pension or are you happy to see their employer lob tens of millions of pounds into their pension pot? Money that could alternatively be spent, for instance, on repaying the money the state spent on bailing out the banks.

I mean if you earning 60k plus a year then you should be making adequate provision for your own retirement, that should be your moral obligation.

 

They may be employed by the state (their choice) but the state can ill afford the pension rates it's paying now let alone the massive deficit we are looking at in the future, if people can afford to provide for themselves then they should, and at 60k plus I think that's reasonable.

I mean if you earning 60k plus a year then you should be making adequate provision for your own retirement, that should be your moral obligation.

 

They may be employed by the state (their choice) but the state can ill afford the pension rates it's paying now let alone the massive deficit we are looking at in the future, if people can afford to provide for themselves then they should, and at 60k plus I think that's reasonable.

So do you also think that executives on seven (or even eight) figure salaries should fund their own pension rather than having their employer pay huge sums of money into the fund? If so, how would you prevent their employers from simply increasing their already hugely inflated salary by the equivalent sum?

 

Would you also agree that tax relief on pension contributions should be restricted to the basic rate?

Oh good GOD

 

Take children to work to help beat strikes, says Cameron

 

PM condemns strikes as 'height of irresponsibility', and says firms should allow parents to bring kids to work on day of action

 

David Cameron has suggested firms should allow parents to take their children to work on the day that millions of public sector workers strike over pensions next Wednesday.

 

The prime minister told MPs in the Commons that the industrial action scheduled for 30 November was the "height of irresponsibility" on a day that he urged members to defy the strikes to avoid inflicting "pain" on hardworking people "who pay your wages".

 

Louise Mensch, Tory MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire, asked Cameron during prime minister's questions whether he thought people should take their kids to work with them to minimise disruption to their day.

 

Cameron told MPs: "These strikes are going to go ahead. Everyone should be very clear about where responsibility lies. It is with those union leaders and … the party opposite … but I think she makes an important point that where it is safe to help people bring their children to work then I think organisations should do so."

 

Tory colleagues asked Cameron a series of questions about the mass action scheduled for next week that will result in most schools being forced to close after the main education unions balloted members.

 

He said the planned walkout by millions of teachers, civil servants and other public sector workers was a "tragedy" at a time when an "extremely reasonable" pensions offer was on the table.

 

"It really is irresponsible, when negotiations are ongoing, to call strikes that will actually lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in our country," he said.

 

"It's the height of irresponsibility. I have to say, what is on offer is an extremely reasonable deal – low and middle earners getting a larger pension at retirement than now, all existing accrued rights being fully protected, any worker within 10 years of retirement seeing no change in either the age they can retire or the amount they can receive.

 

He challenged the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to condemn the mass walkout, which he conceded would "lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in the country".

 

"I think also it is a tragedy that it is not just the union leaders that don't understand this but the party opposite refuses to condemn these strikes."

 

The Labour leader has previously said he thought strikes while public sector pension negotiations were still going on is a "mistake", and that strikes show a failure on both sides of the talks.

 

Cameron suggested in a column in the Sun that the strikes lack support from public sector workers as he urged members to cross the picket line and go to work.

 

"I'm so angry union bosses are ordering millions of public sector workers to strike next week – even while talks are under way. Most of them did not vote for this. Only a quarter of union members backed industrial action."

 

Ballots conducted by public sector unions taking part in the action have resulted in a range of turnouts but the traditionally more moderate unions have recorded the highest proportions of members voting.

 

While Unite had a turnout of 31%, the FDA, representing senior civil servants, including Whitehall mandarins and diplomats — which has never been on strike before – saw 81% back action on a turnout of 54%. Prospect, the civil service union, had a turnout of 52%.

 

The Guardian reported on Wednesday that UK Border Agency staff in embassies around the world are being offered flight homes to provide cover during next week's strike.

 

EU civil servants have backed strike calls over plans to give them a pay rise of 1.8% and increase their working week to 40 hours.

 

The prime minister's spokesman refused to comment directly on reports that the UK Border Agency is spending public money to fly in extra immigration staff from India, South Africa and Russia. But he said: "The public would expect us to do what we can to mitigate the effect of the strikes."

 

Cameron and Miliband also clashed over youth unemployment in the light of figures published last week that show more than 1 million 16-24-year-olds are now out of work.

 

The Labour leader claimed Cameron regarded unemployment as a "price worth paying to protect his failed plan" and called on him to impose a tax on bank bonuses to pay for youth job creation schemes.

 

Miliband said Cameron must change course on his economic strategy or risk a "lost generation" of unemployed youngsters becoming the symbol of his time in office.

 

"You were warned that your strategy of cutting too far and too fast wouldn't create jobs, you were warned it wouldn't create growth and you were warned you would find it harder to get the deficit down," he said. "Isn't that exactly what has happened?"

 

But Cameron insisted the UK was growing faster than the European average and warned that a change in approach could lead to increased interest rate rises.

 

He added: "That is the risk that we would have with Labour's plans for more spending, more borrowing and more debt."

 

Seriously? Can he be more out of touch?

 

Oh good GOD

 

Take children to work to help beat strikes, says Cameron

 

PM condemns strikes as 'height of irresponsibility', and says firms should allow parents to bring kids to work on day of action

 

David Cameron has suggested firms should allow parents to take their children to work on the day that millions of public sector workers strike over pensions next Wednesday.

 

The prime minister told MPs in the Commons that the industrial action scheduled for 30 November was the "height of irresponsibility" on a day that he urged members to defy the strikes to avoid inflicting "pain" on hardworking people "who pay your wages".

 

Louise Mensch, Tory MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire, asked Cameron during prime minister's questions whether he thought people should take their kids to work with them to minimise disruption to their day.

 

Cameron told MPs: "These strikes are going to go ahead. Everyone should be very clear about where responsibility lies. It is with those union leaders and … the party opposite … but I think she makes an important point that where it is safe to help people bring their children to work then I think organisations should do so."

 

Tory colleagues asked Cameron a series of questions about the mass action scheduled for next week that will result in most schools being forced to close after the main education unions balloted members.

 

He said the planned walkout by millions of teachers, civil servants and other public sector workers was a "tragedy" at a time when an "extremely reasonable" pensions offer was on the table.

 

"It really is irresponsible, when negotiations are ongoing, to call strikes that will actually lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in our country," he said.

 

"It's the height of irresponsibility. I have to say, what is on offer is an extremely reasonable deal – low and middle earners getting a larger pension at retirement than now, all existing accrued rights being fully protected, any worker within 10 years of retirement seeing no change in either the age they can retire or the amount they can receive.

 

He challenged the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to condemn the mass walkout, which he conceded would "lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in the country".

 

"I think also it is a tragedy that it is not just the union leaders that don't understand this but the party opposite refuses to condemn these strikes."

 

The Labour leader has previously said he thought strikes while public sector pension negotiations were still going on is a "mistake", and that strikes show a failure on both sides of the talks.

 

Cameron suggested in a column in the Sun that the strikes lack support from public sector workers as he urged members to cross the picket line and go to work.

 

"I'm so angry union bosses are ordering millions of public sector workers to strike next week – even while talks are under way. Most of them did not vote for this. Only a quarter of union members backed industrial action."

 

Ballots conducted by public sector unions taking part in the action have resulted in a range of turnouts but the traditionally more moderate unions have recorded the highest proportions of members voting.

 

While Unite had a turnout of 31%, the FDA, representing senior civil servants, including Whitehall mandarins and diplomats — which has never been on strike before – saw 81% back action on a turnout of 54%. Prospect, the civil service union, had a turnout of 52%.

 

The Guardian reported on Wednesday that UK Border Agency staff in embassies around the world are being offered flight homes to provide cover during next week's strike.

 

EU civil servants have backed strike calls over plans to give them a pay rise of 1.8% and increase their working week to 40 hours.

 

The prime minister's spokesman refused to comment directly on reports that the UK Border Agency is spending public money to fly in extra immigration staff from India, South Africa and Russia. But he said: "The public would expect us to do what we can to mitigate the effect of the strikes."

 

Cameron and Miliband also clashed over youth unemployment in the light of figures published last week that show more than 1 million 16-24-year-olds are now out of work.

 

The Labour leader claimed Cameron regarded unemployment as a "price worth paying to protect his failed plan" and called on him to impose a tax on bank bonuses to pay for youth job creation schemes.

 

Miliband said Cameron must change course on his economic strategy or risk a "lost generation" of unemployed youngsters becoming the symbol of his time in office.

 

"You were warned that your strategy of cutting too far and too fast wouldn't create jobs, you were warned it wouldn't create growth and you were warned you would find it harder to get the deficit down," he said. "Isn't that exactly what has happened?"

 

But Cameron insisted the UK was growing faster than the European average and warned that a change in approach could lead to increased interest rate rises.

 

He added: "That is the risk that we would have with Labour's plans for more spending, more borrowing and more debt."

 

Seriously? Can he be more out of touch?

 

 

Indeed... The thing these Tory twats seem to forget about is that THEY DONT HAVE A MANDATE, so, talk about living in glass houses and all that... They carp on about "oh, the majority of members didn't ask for Industrial action.....".. Well, I'm afraid that's not how a ballot works.. We cant assume that people who cant be arsed to vote in a ballot would vote against anymore than we can assume that they would vote for....

 

I think when you get an organisation like the FDA supporting Industrial action, then, that pretty much says it all....

Mind you, Cameron's suggestion is pretty hilarious tbh.. Wouldn't employers actually be legally liable for these kids while on the business premises....? :rolleyes: