Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Mapletree Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.21am
Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Whoa, that's what I like, fighting talk. Guess what, we aren't entitled to the same state pension as our parents, SERPs has gone. Well done for paying into your occupational pension for 30 years. It's a shame you missed out on 19 years of paying in though. But of course you didn't have to did you? Because the schemes were so very generous in those days. Yes, you played by the rules as they were written then. No doubt you don't agree with rules changing, for example you should be able to be prejudiced against older people shouldn't you? That was the rule when you were a lad. Or maybe things move on, unexpected increases happen in life spans, the economy hits a crisis and the Ponzi style scheme from which you benefited is no longer fit for purpose. And don't forget that almost none of the DB schemes proved to be properly funded. The Government ones weren't funded at all. Rather than accuse me of 'screeching', pretty bizarre considering I will also be a recipient of a DB scheme, maybe look at yourself. It is the people 40 years younger than us that will pay all of their lives for featherbedding a generation. I didn't say this was unfair on me, I am thinking of others. It's a shame you don't feel the same way. No doubt you also rail against inheritance tax, do you get the irony there?
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.21am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh.

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules.
A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad.

Whoa, that's what I like, fighting talk.

Guess what, we aren't entitled to the same state pension as our parents, SERPs has gone.

Well done for paying into your occupational pension for 30 years. It's a shame you missed out on 19 years of paying in though. But of course you didn't have to did you? Because the schemes were so very generous in those days.

Yes, you played by the rules as they were written then. No doubt you don't agree with rules changing, for example you should be able to be prejudiced against older people shouldn't you? That was the rule when you were a lad.

Or maybe things move on, unexpected increases happen in life spans, the economy hits a crisis and the Ponzi style scheme from which you benefited is no longer fit for purpose. And don't forget that almost none of the DB schemes proved to be properly funded. The Government ones weren't funded at all.

Rather than accuse me of 'screeching', pretty bizarre considering I will also be a recipient of a DB scheme, maybe look at yourself. It is the people 40 years younger than us that will pay all of their lives for featherbedding a generation. I didn't say this was unfair on me, I am thinking of others. It's a shame you don't feel the same way. No doubt you also rail against inheritance tax, do you get the irony there?

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 01 Nov 14 11.24am
Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial sh*tstorm in the first place. Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense. Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it. I don't buy into this argument. Firstly, it isn't to do with the recent recession, their pension fund has to be sustainable not overly subsidised by taxpayers. And I don't see how what the PM gets paid is relevant to their argument, it's not a comparable occupation, don't think a fireman could run a country, in any case the PM gets paid less than some Council Leaders. I don't have a problem with Bankers pay, they aren't subsidised by the taxpayer and pay alot of tax. Some of the salaries and bonuses seem ludicrous but it's all determined by supply and demand economics, you may as well have a pop at footballers as well. Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

01 Nov 14 11.24am

Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am

It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial sh*tstorm in the first place.

Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense.

Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it.

I don't buy into this argument. Firstly, it isn't to do with the recent recession, their pension fund has to be sustainable not overly subsidised by taxpayers.

And I don't see how what the PM gets paid is relevant to their argument, it's not a comparable occupation, don't think a fireman could run a country, in any case the PM gets paid less than some Council Leaders.

I don't have a problem with Bankers pay, they aren't subsidised by the taxpayer and pay alot of tax. Some of the salaries and bonuses seem ludicrous but it's all determined by supply and demand economics, you may as well have a pop at footballers as well.

Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46 Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.26am
Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest their pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations. Edited by Helmet46 (01 Nov 2014 11.29am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.26am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest their pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations.

Edited by Helmet46 (01 Nov 2014 11.29am)

Alert a moderator to this post

dingdong bognor regis 01 Nov 14 11.30am
everyone has the right to withdraw labour as a last resort to end a dispute. nothing selfish about that
Alert a moderator to this post

dingdong

bognor regis 01 Nov 14 11.30am

everyone has the right to withdraw labour as a last resort to end a dispute. nothing selfish about that

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.31am
Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations. Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.31am

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations.

Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners.

Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46 Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.34am
Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations. Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners. just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 01 Nov 14 11.34am

Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations.

just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 01 Nov 14 12.15pm
Quote dingdong at 01 Nov 2014 11.30am everyone has the right to withdraw labour as a last resort to end a dispute. nothing selfish about that No one's denying that. it's not what the debate is about Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

01 Nov 14 12.15pm

Quote dingdong at 01 Nov 2014 11.30am

everyone has the right to withdraw labour as a last resort to end a dispute. nothing selfish about that

No one's denying that. it's not what the debate is about

Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

EsussexEagle 01 Nov 14 1.33pm
The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement. The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get �19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of �28000. Fair enough. But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of �9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early? I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home. I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.
Alert a moderator to this post

EsussexEagle

01 Nov 14 1.33pm

The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement.

The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get �19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of �28000. Fair enough.

But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of �9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking
that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early?

I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home.

I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 01 Nov 14 1.43pm
Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement. The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get �19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of �28000. Fair enough. But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of �9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early? I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home. I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse. As I said earlier, it's a stitch up.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 01 Nov 14 1.43pm

Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm

The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get �19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of �28000. Fair enough.

I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.

As I said earlier, it's a stitch up.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 01 Nov 14 2.36pm
Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement. The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get �19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of �28000. Fair enough. But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of �9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early? I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home. I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse. Why wouldn't you be able to physically manage at 55? Surely the point of working patterns are designed so that firefighters have ample rest inbetween shifts? i'd expect all firemen to be in the gym on their days off, be non-smokers and have a healthy diet. I fully respect the job they do and the element of danger associated with it but I don't agree with using this to garner sympathy in order to keep an unsustainable pension fund. You are living longer and taking more out so it's only fair you put more in. Why should I pay for that? Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

01 Nov 14 2.36pm

Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm

The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get �19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of �28000. Fair enough.

I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.

Why wouldn't you be able to physically manage at 55? Surely the point of working patterns are designed so that firefighters have ample rest inbetween shifts? i'd expect all firemen to be in the gym on their days off, be non-smokers and have a healthy diet.

I fully respect the job they do and the element of danger associated with it but I don't agree with using this to garner sympathy in order to keep an unsustainable pension fund. You are living longer and taking more out so it's only fair you put more in. Why should I pay for that?

Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

rob1969 Banstead Surrey 01 Nov 14 3.28pm
Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.34am Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations. Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners. just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!! Well done : I am not normally given to strident outbursts but I do get really pissxd off when I keep reading on here that apparently all the wrongs of the country are the fault of people who just happen to have been born in the 1940's. As for our lack of concern for future generations - in the world I occupy - my generation have probably done more to help their children, and now our grand children, than any previous recent generation (End of current rant!)
Alert a moderator to this post

rob1969

Banstead Surrey 01 Nov 14 3.28pm

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.34am

Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations.

just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!!

Well done
:

I am not normally given to strident outbursts but I do get really pissxd off when I keep reading on here that apparently all the wrongs of the country are the fault of people who just happen to have been born in the 1940's.

As for our lack of concern for future generations - in the world I occupy - my generation have probably done more to help their children, and now our grand children, than any previous recent generation (End of current rant!)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 01 Nov 14 3.41pm
[Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 01 Nov 14 3.41pm

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Site Map

Sponsors