Middle class wannabes want the working class to subsidise their pensions ?

See the edit. I've found it and given you a link. So to you too.

How many pamphlets would they need to say it in for you to be convinced? As far as I know this is the only one they've produced for the pension dispute so that's 100% of all PCS pamphlets on this issue. Or does it need to me more than 100% for you to support it?

Its a load of balls, its a waste of paper, conclusion there isnt one , why isnt there a conclusion ?, you tell me ?

I have no idea what you're on about, or is it that you're too thick/lazy to read the whole thing and want a 3 line precis? And it's a PDF so I'm not sure why you're concerned about wasting paper.

Go to the conclusion, page 14, there isnt one, saying we deserve a fair pension means what ?, you tell me .

Oh, and there is a conclusion but they've been dead sneaky and called it the "conclusion" (on page 14) so I can see why you might be confused. Have another one of these

Yes there is. The clue is at the top of the page, where it says, "conclusion: fair pensions for all".

You're a really shit troll. That's just way too obvious. Nobody's that thick.

Your turn to answer me now, i answered you, why is there no conclusion ?, saying we deserve a fair deal on pensions is not a conclusion is it.

It's pretty obvious I'd have said. What do you expect? It's a pamphlet not a fucking actuarial review.

Who does these unions want to pay for their members pensions 'Spiney' ???

That's not all it says though is it? Do you want me to copy the text into here?

Their members, same as they are doing now "trampie".

If everybody is to have good pensions, which is what i want, who pays ???

There is a short fall in most cases, their pensions are subsidised, if their pensions werent subsidised and were member funded only, in lots of cases they would get much lower pensions, for example the taxpayer is paying £2 billion towards police pensions.

What are you on about? Everybody pays, through progressive taxation (you'd know that if you'd read it and not just jumped to the conclusion - you know that a conclusion is just a summary, if you want detail you have to read the report, right?)

Not true. The only pension fund I know of that's had an actuarial review in the last few years is the teachers pension fund. It had a surplus.

Plus we need to ask who the "taxpayer" is in this context.

1) people on low pay are, generally speaking, net beneficiaries - the contributions they pay are smaller than the benefits they receive in the form of state pensions, tax credits, healthcare and services - the ones who pay more than they receive tend to be the higher salaried earners (your middles class wannabes).

2) If they reduce these pensions whose taxes will be cut if any? Those of the poor or those of the rich? We both know the answer.

So the only conclusion we can reach is that, in this case, the tax payer is the high earner. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

What they are saying is we want a fair deal on pensions, but they are not telling their members is that the public including their own members will have to pay a lot more tax to pay for it all, which im all for, when i put a poll up on this very site asking if income tax should be raised so public sector pensions could be protected and private sector pensions could be brought up to be the equivalent of the public sector pensions, two thirds of posters that responded said no to raising income tax.

Raising income tax for whom?

Edit: And why just income tax? What about corporation tax, capital gains tax, land tax, property tax, inheritance tax? You know, the taxes paid mainly by the rich.

To pay for the public sector to have their pensions protected and to pay for the private sector to have a similar government backed pension scheme.

Yes, but whose income tax is to be increased? Why should it be everyone's if your aim is to help the poor? And (see the edit on my previous post) what about other forms of taxation? Why can't we (if we're not getting rid of capitalism altogether) give employers a legal obligation to provide decent pensions for their employees?

The edit sounds good, not the right time for corporation tax hikes at the moment but in general, no problem.
Tax is a dirty word, everybody wants something but nobody wants to pay for it, the unions should say how they propose paying for it, at the end of the day to give everybody a fair deal on pensions it means tax hikes, which is fair enough as long as its not taxes on the poor.

It says it should be paid for by progressive taxation. What do you think that means?

Not everyone's income tax to increase obviously, what was the highest rate of tax before Thatcher slashed it overnight and paid for it by virtually doubling VAT , 83% wasn't it ?

2,4,6,8 who do we appreciate.
25,50,75 ... 10,33,66
What numbers are they talking ?

Something like that yeah, I think there was a 90 or 95% rate at one stage, but I might be confusing us with another country.

So are you saying you agree with the strikers now then? That pamphlet was produced in conjunction with Unite, NUT and UCU (the police federation can't organise like a proper union so it's no surprise they didn't contribute) so this is the position of all the major unions involved in the pension dispute.

They've not said specifically, but that's because it's a pamphlet and not an actuarial review or anything like that. Precise figures would require a full costing but since they use the term "progressive taxation" it's fair to assume they're talking about the wealthy bearing the brunt.

Ive always agreed, i just think everybody should have a fair deal.

Do you think 'Spinny' that minimum wage workers without a pension will end up with similar pension deals to the police and teachers ?, after these protests are over and done with.

The rmt fought for cleaners on the underground to get higher than minimum wage and won iirc. Bit difficult to do anthing for anyone who wont join unions or organise themselves though.

Not all work places have a union, some smaller employers dont like dealing with unions and dont encourage people to join, also the subs to join a union for a low paid worker can be expensive [depends on the union], unions arent encouraged in lots of workplaces and its the workplaces that need union representation the most that often doesnt get it unfortunately.

It's spiney actually. And yes, some will - there are still some minimum wage workers in the public sector you know? And even if they didn't, you've utterly failed to explain why we should oppose these people protecting their pensions.

Seems to me you're just a sad little man who'd rather join in the Tory attacks on the public sector than go for the real villains. But you would, what with being a TORY and everything.