Well, apart from vindicating everything that Neil Forman and I have been saying ad nauseum, and confirming to Spartacus that she was completely out of her depth on a subject that she knew nothing about, it merely highlights the issues so that everyone can hopefully now realise the full extent of the problem. Moreover, it confirms that I was not "scaremongering" at all, as Spartacus would have it. Key points: 1. Despite such a high level of added taxpayer contributions since 2007, the scheme's liabilities have risen from £128m to £380m between 2007 and 2011. (How big would that deficit be by 2002, 2025 and 2030?). As I have repeatedly said, this scheme will cause Guernsey to go bankrupt unless it ends right now. 2. Taxpayer contributions would need to be MASSIVELY increased just to stop the deficit from rising, let alone to make up the £380m deficit. 3. As Stephen Ainsworth (of scheme actuaries Bacon & Woodrow) states: "...most employers are paying additional deficit contributions into their final salary pension schemes in oder to reduce the deficit faster". Of course they are - if they are able to - because at some point the deficit needs to be funded by the employer, i.e. by us as taxpayers, which is what I have been saying to Spartacus from the outset. However, the fact is that the States of Guernsey does not have a spare £380m, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Guernsey taxpayers seem to have no appetite whatsoever to see GST introduced or their hard-earned taxes going towards funding this £380m deficit, let alone the current £27.5m annual contribution. It could easily be a £600m deficit by 2020 if nothing is done. In summary, the scheme will bankrupt Guernsey unless something is done immediately to "stem the bleeding", and the unions certainly need to be aware that they will get no sympathy from the public if they try to fight to maintain the current scheme. I still think that the CARE proposals go nowhere near far enough. The new proposals might not be a "final salary" scheme but its certainly still a defined benefits scheme, and so the risks still sit wholly with the taxpayer when it comes to meeting the new scheme's obligations. Back to the drawing board, I say. Maybe the terms of reference to the working group were not tight enough on the affordability front. The public sector MUST shrink to enable even the proposed CARE scheme to be remotely affordable. No doubt dear old Spartacus will still claim that its not unsustainable and that the deficit can be ignored....
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
