Taxi Driver Online

Oh, and taxi trade 'pensions' in the form of HC plates are a different thing altogether

When I was in my early 20s, I spent a short while selling life insurance and pensions. The growth of the funds for illustration purposes at the time were being quoted at 9, 11 and 13% and the actual returns were in fact far more than those figures. Nowadays I think a growth forcast of 5% would be considered as high.

_________________
Grandad,

Is it any wonder I get confused

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Not sure what your point is Toots, but for anyone else reading please note that the first quote above is from Edders 23 and not myself

I'm so sorry I've fixed it now but I'm still confused

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Thanks Toots, but not sure what's confusing.

Grandad has the root of the problem spot on - the returns on the pension funds anticipated when the money was first invested hasn't materialised, so to pay the public sector pensions - which are guaranteed - the taxpayer has to make up the shortfall.

Here's an article about the kind of thing that Edders was on about. As I said it seems that his figures may have been a bit over the top, but he was certainly right in principle:

http://fullfact.org/blog/council_tax_pe ... ckles-2745

I understood the point Grandad made and fully accept that that is the way things are, they are after all civil servants. The bit I don't understand is the comment by Edders. Obviously when wages are paid to LOs then that should surely include a % which goes into the pension pot, if that pot falls short then Grandads scenerio kicks in, I completely understand that. I got the impression and I could be wrong, again that Edders thinks there is a payment not included in the wages calculation for the pension pot and that's where I get confused. My understanding is when the cost of wages are calculated that should not just include what is given to the empoyee but also what the empoyer has to contribute as a matter of course, so when the calculation is complete it should be actual gross wages to the LO plus employers contributions

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

toots my figures were quoted to me by members of the FSB a year or so ago when the FSB was running a campaign to get something done about the situation. The problem is that over the last 20 years councils have created 1000's of "mickey mouse" posts such as gay rights advisors, community liaison officers you know the sort of thing often paying these people around £30000 a year once they have worked for a council they are entitled to the pension provision and there is an increasing number of public sector pensioners all of whom have to be paid for many of these people only moved into public sector jobs towards the end of their working lives so will have paid little into the pot but will have full pension entitlement hence the massive shortfall the figure for Lincolnshire County Council is supposed to be 83% but I don't know if this takes into account government funding I suspect its 83 % of council generated revenue perhaps toots you should find out about your local council the answer might shock you !

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

With the info given on here then the council are not only charging drivers what it costs for the license but also what it costs for the pension of a retired officer, is that legal

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

I am not sure that you are correct with this statement. Civil Servans only get the full pension entitlement after completeing many years of service. If you have not completed the required number of years the pension is pro rata.

_________________
Grandad,

Interesting question regarding retired LOs, but clearly the pensions of staff who have nothing to do with the licensing function shouldn't be subsidised by fees.

I think the point Edders was making was that if there's a shortfall in the licensing function pension pot then current fees may be being used to make up that shortfall, whereas as regards more general council functions any shortfall would come out of more general current council revenue such as council tax and funding from central government, both of which are obviously ultimately borne by the taxpayer.

But perhaps the council could use more general council income to pay LO pensions rather than increased current licensing fees, but it's certainly an interesting question.