Spartacus 1. Wrong. The answer is not to "wait until the global financial crisis is over". That's probably 5-10 years time, by when the deficit would probably be well over £1 billion and we would be bankrupted even quicker. The deficit has already risen by hundreds of millions in 5 years despite increased contributions. There's more chance of you endorsing the 11-plus than there is of the current scheme remaining as it is. 2. Unfortunately, you fail to include investment losses. So contributions of around £29m fund pensions out of around £27m, yet we then see a £36m loss in investments. Net deficit £33.5m for the year. Not what I call "washing its face". 3. No - I'm not confused at all. You don't know need to explain your rationale to me - I know what you are saying. But you are WRONG to apply your method of valuation instead of FRS 17, which is far more realistic. Yes - I believe the actuary is wrong, no doubt after taking instructions from their client, the States of Guernsey, to apply a projected level of future investment returns which is 58.5% higher than FRS17 says is realistically achievable for the appropriate risks. As I said earlier, if you had bothered to read it, they could just as easily have projected annual investment returns of 5% per anum and that would probably show no deficit at all under FRS17, but to do so when 2.05% is the appropriate benchmark return, would be utterly irresponsible. What you fail to realise is that any current rosy picture can be painted just by applying a favourable projected rate of return, so that everybody can pretent that its all hunky dory, yet in 25 years time the sh*t will hit the fan and people would be scratching their head wondering how the island went bankrupt, and how thousands of civil servants will not be getting anything like their expected level of pension. Why on earth would any sensible government today want to do that?
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
