Well spotted.

I did actually mean billion, but the comma was meant to be a decimal point, so £1.216 billion.

It makes quite a big difference, I grant you that!

Mind you, give it another 20 years and those liabilities will have rocketed ….:)

Report abuse

What happened to no more discussions on pensions with your old friend Spartacus?

Gave in to temptation did you?

Report abuse

Million not billion!

Report abuse

The States of Guernsey (T&R) makes that decision. Yes, they published the £1,216 billion liabiliies figure, but they elected not to change their funding target from the old basis to the FRS17 basis, presumably because it would merely highlight the size of the whole.

I cannot find the electronic version of Beth Haines’ comment but I recall the printed newspaper version. I am sure that it was later than 2008 though. I believe it was in 2010 or 2011. I may be wrong but I think Neil Forman may have previously provided the link to it, but my online search efforts have not found it.

I have yet to hear any coherent comment from anybody as to why the projected liabilities figure under FRS17 has been conveniently disregarded for the purposes of the funding target. Sorry, I know your explanation and I don’t buy it at all. The explanatory notes re FRS17 in the 2010 and 2011 audited States accounts merely state where and when FRS17 has been adopted. It was NOT adopted in full. The big question is of course why.

Report abuse

Who should decide what is the “correct” liabilities figure? The States publishes both figures so what is the problem?

The States have not ignored FRS17 at all they have included it in the notes. They could adopt FRS17 in full and put the liabilities on the balance sheet but what difference would it make?

There is no funding problem, they have only recently completed the long term task of addressing the overfunding problem.

Which year did the estimated value of the scheme’s liabilities rise by £200M? Was it 2008? That would make sense as I gather that was the year that the States switched to Incorporate FRS17. Therefore the liabilities did not “rise” they were just previously calculated under different assumptions. Hope that answers your question.

Report abuse

To hit the 90% target of the correct liabilities figure, the fund would need to have stood at £1.094 billion, so it was nearly £200m short of that target figure at that date.

Ignoring the correct liabilities figure completely masks the problem. FRS17 was introduced for a reason, and the States has negligently chosen to ignore it. As a result, a massive and burgeoning funding problem has been simply swept under the carpet where it will continue to grow, and will eventually bankrupt Guernsey, unless it is confronted and dealt with.

And by the way, did the same Beth Haines not state on the front page of the GP that the liabilities of the scheme had risen by £200m during the year? Why would she have said that, I wonder?

Report abuse

http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=75207&p=0

I agree with Rodney Benjamin that the States would need to present a case for change and that it would need to be amicable. He knows his stuff.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2012/01/24/pensions-issue-‘can-only-have-amicable-so

No way will the States proceed without agreement of the workers.

Report abuse

“affordable” = is there enough money in the government coffers to pay for it?

Sorry – I ignored your request as I didn’t think anybody with an IQ above their shoe size would need to ask for such an obvious definition.

Of course we need to look after our public service workers, but not at the expense of bankrupting the island as a direct result.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there was a question mark after my 50% comment. That means its a question, not a statement. And I said “raise tax to 50%”, not “raise tax by 50%”, but we already know that reading what’s actually written isn’t your strength.

Report abuse

As I’ve previously stated, I’m not interested in what the public sector workers think. That’s not intended to be disrespectful in any way, Its just human nature that they will be 100% against any changes, which is totally understandable. It’s like asking everyone whether they would like to pay more tax.

But you miss the point. This debate isn’t about whether its right to change the scheme.

It’s about whether to continue the scheme will sink the island as its unaffordable.

It’s about whether or not the fact that the scheme is currently in deficit to the tune of £380m is a problem for the island, given that the States aim for a 90% funding target but which has fallen some £200m short of that in just 5 years.

It’s about whether taxpayers will happily see taxpayer-funded contributions needing to be raised massively to fund the scheme, almost certainly resulting in a GST being introduced just to fund it.

There will be at least 4,500 public sector workers in favour of retaining it. There are likely to be 20,000-odd taxpayers against it.

It will be “interesting” to say the least.

Report abuse

“Raise tax by 50% ” ha ha you do like plucking out random numbers from nowhere.

Report abuse

A typical socialist view – lets carry on trying to fund a scheme which Guernsey can’t remotely afford, just so that we can have a public sector of a size that we don’t need? “Anything is affordable”. Really? How do you work that out? Raising tax rates to 50% perhaps to pay for it? Can’t see that one flying.

As for “politics of envy”, I’ve only just stopped laughing.

Spartacus and Arnald – is this the left wing dream team? A new political party for Guernsey perhaps? That certainly will be interesting!

Report abuse

You can’t spout numbers of Sparty supporters for two main reasons.

1 people are reviewing the proposal and discussing the affects that they bring, in order that they can then satisfy number 2

2 once the proposals have been reviewed and people understand the affects, there will be further discussions with the high ups.

I should think that most of those are behind closed doors just like the pension review!

Give it time GM. you’ll see more Sparty supporters I’m sure.

No public sector worker is going to air their (real) views on this forum when there are discussions to be had with the people that make the real differences.

Report abuse

That pedantry done, Spartacus has tried to explain what ‘affordable’ means, with respect to pensions.

The facts that there are deficits is entirely due to management of said instruments, not the fault of the thousands that do work, that you and the rest, take for granted.

People can wish all they like for the supposed ‘burden’ of the public sector to be ‘less’, but then, ultimately, you support the lowering of living standards for everyone, public or private sector.

It is truly laughable that any budget deficit caused by pandering to the private sector can be reversed by public sector, front-line cuts. Yes, pensions are front-line. The incentive to work for the strategic development of Guernsey is not done by the private sector.

A caveat is that I know that there has been some ‘parachuting’ of benefits for end-of-term CS’s, but seriously, that isn’t the issue.

As for the funding of a pension fund..? It became unmanageable in the UK because of the sheer scale of it. (Also it was scorched under politically motivated short-termism), over here we are supposed to have the best expertise for fund management.

The liabilities are not claimable all at once. The numbers thrown around mean nothing with respect to reality.

Distressing the public sector about their future is simply ignorant political nonsense. There are plenty of intelligent people that could find a decent solution, the problem is the poisonous mindset of people like “GM”, they can spout disaster scenarios in order to satisfy their inbuilt bias against public sector workers.

The argument “GM” forwards, as well as those by a past prospective deputy is simply an extension of their politics of envy.

A simple incentive for people to do work for the greater good of our society should be supported, not condemned.

Anything, for a country that we pertain to be, is affordable. The rhetoric is sheer and absolute ideoligical rubbish.

Protect public pride in the public sector, it will outlast the private sector bubbles.

Report abuse

Good – that will mean silence at last. The irony of your last post is once again lost on you. You think it’s me who has the problem?

Never mind dear, take a chill pill and focus on a subject that you actually know something about. There must surely be one out there.

Report abuse

By all means counter my views I welcome counter arguments and by all means call me all the insults you feel necessary but have a little read of this and you will begin to understand that your behaviour is not healthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

Public sector employees who have posted on this subject have probably done so in breach of their employment conditions and they should be speaking to their unions in private, so it is no surprise that so few have posted.

All I have done is offer explanations and encourage people to research for themselves or wait until the States debate before forming conclusions. I am proud of doing so and do not see there will be any need for me to participate in future debates on this topic when it goes to the states.

Report abuse