Bush gears up for pensions battle

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
He is set to promote his plan to reform Social Security, the US public pensions scheme.

The 70-year-old programme is one of the sacred cows of American life - so much so that analysts say for a politician to touch it means instant death.

But the number of pensioners drawing benefits is rising relative to the number of workers paying in, and Mr Bush says if nothing is done, the scheme will run out of money.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4214275.stm

So what to members want to see happen? How do you think this one will play out?
 
I asm an advocate of at least part of everyone’s social security going into privatization with stipulations of course. It could not be treated as our own private 401k’s where a person could take money out if they wanted. I don’t think that could be allowed, or for instance someone with a gambling problem could damage their future.

I don’t even pay social security now in my job because I am a school teacher and we have a separate pension. Many government jobs are the same.

So, I say let everyone have the same benefit of the private sector. It is the future. They do this in several other countries successfully already.

Do you get something like social security in England or is it privatized?
 
Everyone gets a state pension Fitz. You can claim it at 60 for women and 65 for men. We pay national insurance tax out of our wages for the National Health Service and a proportion of this money goes to SERPS (State Earnings Related Pension Scheme). You can opt out and have this mony paid into a private pension scheme and everyone should have a private scheme too as the state pension is very low.

Of course everyone is facing the same problems at the mo with a burgeoning elderly population, this is a concern with the EU as you can imagine, richer countries may have to foot the bill for poorer countries pensions defecit.

This is the government website on it of you are interested!

thepensionservice.gov.uk/
 
When I first entered the work force back in the early sixties, there was a newsletter being passed around that showed what your social security contribution would amount to at age 65 if it was compounded at 3%, which was the going rate for savings at that time. I don’t remember the numbers but it was amazing even before adding in the employer’s contribution. The point of this is that if the politicians had kept their sticky fingers out of the “trust” fund and if it had been put into, say, government bonds, there would probably be no social security crisis on the horizon now.

But, Washington being what it is, what do we do now? It is really a shame that the pols can’t put the party bickering aside and address this issue in a constructive manner. Something obviously needs to be done but I doubt that anything reasonable and workable will be forthcoming from that zoo we call congress.
 
Good point Bob, I agree- some issues need cross party agreement for the benefit of the people…That’s the problem with adverserial politics I suppose!
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Good point Bob, I agree- some issues need cross party agreement for the benefit of the people…That’s the problem with adverserial politics I suppose!
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with the political system, just with most of those involved in it and their misplaced priorities. It should be country first, party second, not the other way around. I know your position on the Iraq war and don’t want to get into a discussion of that, but a good example of the party first attitude was shown yesterday when a Democrat publically demanded that the administration set a timetable for troop withdrawal. To me, that was just a cheap shot at the administration. I don’t think anyone in his right mind would seriously think we should do anything but stay the course until we see what develops. Never mind that we should present a united front in this situation. Trying to make the “ins” look bad is so much more important.
 
Definitely, I agree.

It’s taken as very bad form if party politics interfer with war policy here too. Mr. Howard (the Conservative leader) did attack Mr. Blair after supporting the invasion initially and despite the general population’s distate for the whole affair, it definitely served to tarnish his reputation with the people.
 
The only argument I have heard from the opposition that seems to have any merit is that there is some 2 or 3 trillion $ cost to set-up.

Does anyone have some knowledge of what this “cost” is for?

Seeing as there has not been an actual proposal presented, I am suspicious that what is being called a “cost” is really a reduction in revenues as younger people retain some control of some of the withholdings. However, the cost is being bantered about as if it was some kind of expenditure.

Anyone?
 
I’m waiting for a specific proposal to emerge before forming an opinion. There are going to be additional costs involved in keeping the system operational, no matter which way it goes. As of now, I think it’s a lot of political rhetoric on both sides.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Everyone gets a state pension Fitz. You can claim it at 60 for women and 65 for men. We pay national insurance tax out of our wages for the National Health Service and a proportion of this money goes to SERPS (State Earnings Related Pension Scheme). You can opt out and have this mony paid into a private pension scheme and everyone should have a private scheme too as the state pension is very low.

Of course everyone is facing the same problems at the mo with a burgeoning elderly population, this is a concern with the EU as you can imagine, richer countries may have to foot the bill for poorer countries pensions defecit.

This is the government website on it of you are interested!

thepensionservice.gov.uk/
Click to expand...
FF, I got this quote from the BBC article. Are you worried about eroding benefits?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4226287.stm
EXCERPT:
Pensions row sparks strike fears

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40782000/jpg/_40782769_pensionstrike_pa.jpg Strike action could cause chaos in the run up to the election

A further 20,000 local government workers are to be balloted on action in a row over pensions, amid fears of a wave of pre-election walk-outs.

Amicus said on Tuesday it will hold a strike ballot this month over plans to raise the retirement age.

Unison is already balloting members on action and the Transport & General Workers Union (T&G) is to hold a vote.

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) is also expected to vote on similar action within a few weeks.

Construction union UCATT is also considering a strike ballot.

The unions are protesting at plans to raise their retirement age from 60 to 65 and change early retirement rules.

Controversial plans



The changes to local government pensions are part of a wider review of all public sector pension schemes aimed at tackling rising pension costs.

Last week, the Employers’ Organisation for local government spoke out against the strike threat, branding it “unjustified, precipitate and ultimately futile”.

The group added that pension costs are rising as a result of longer life expectancy and those costs need to be controlled.

“We have a limited range of choices to control that cost,” Rob Pinkham executive director of the Employers’ Organisation said.

“Employees can pay a little more, can work a little longer or can receive a little less. Those are the only alternatives,” he added.

Unison claims that the latest moves could mean that government staff face a cut of up to 30% in their pension if they retire at 60.

Wave of action?

T&G National Officer Peter Allenson added: “The government is intent on making hard-pressed council workers work longer for less.”

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifUNIONS IN PENSIONS ROW
UNISON - currently balloting 800,000 members
T&G - 70,000 members to be balloted
AMICUS - 20,000 members to be balloted this month
FBU - 1,650 control staff expected to vote in a few weeks
UCATT - discussing a ballot of 25,000 members next week

"We reject a ‘work till you drop’ culture and the government should be setting an example in pension provision rather than pushing through cuts to benefits.

“Local government workers receive an average pension of just £3,800 a year, well below the average pension in the economy as a whole.”

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif **We reject a ‘work till you drop’ culture and the Government should be setting an example in pension provision rather than pushing through cuts to benefits **http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif
 
40.png
FightingFat:
Everyone gets a state pension Fitz. You can claim it at 60 for women and 65 for men. thepensionservice.gov.uk/
Click to expand...
What would there be a difference in the age of retirement for men and for women? Wouldn’t this be fought over by the men? Or did they lobby to work longer than women? Just wondering. It seems illegal.
 
40.png
Fitz:
FF, I got this quote from the BBC article. Are you worried about eroding benefits?
Click to expand...
I’m not because I’m only 34 and I have known for a long while that I couldn’t rely on my state pension when I retire. The last Tory government broke the link between state pensions and inflation so it hasn’t been worth a whit since then really!
A lot of people who work for the public sector or old nationalised industries expect the comapny to keep them when they retire- it’s just not realistic. The money has to come from somewhere and as we are all living longer, we need to understand the necessaty to make better provision. Now of course that’s all very well for someone like me who can afford to make provision, but what about those who are on the poverty line anyway? I think this is what needs our attention and where I wouldn’t mind paying a little extra tax to make a difference in their lives when they retire.
 
40.png
Fitz:
What would there be a difference in the age of retirement for men and for women? Wouldn’t this be fought over by the men? Or did they lobby to work longer than women? Just wondering. It seems illegal.
Click to expand...
It’s always been like that, but it’s changing. The government are trying to remove the mandatory retirement age altogether!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top