I don’t think it is.

On PFI, you can split that into two.

1. The capital element
2. The future spending part (maintenance)

The first is clearly a debt. Under all accounting set ups, its a debt.

Now lets look more at the pensions debts.

Civil service pension is a contract. Why shouldn’t that be put down as a debt, along with any assets in the funds (if they exist). ie The liability is the net difference between the present value of what is owed, against the present value of any assets.

Standard accounting for any business.

Now why omit the state pension?

If you deposit money with a bank, it creates a liability. They owe you the money back plus any interest.

If you deposit money with the government and they say they will pay you a pension, it creates a liability.

Very simple.

Why people want to omit the liabilities is more interesting. It’s because if they are included, the government is bust. The ponzi bubble is blown. So they want to hide it.

The consequences for the people who are owed a state pension however, is more dire. They won’t get it. All the accounts do is make it transparent that they can’t pay out their pensions. Not reporting the debts doesn’t magic the debt away and mean you will get the pension.

PFI – a very bad Tory idea, granted – is a long term liability.

Like the hoo-hah over public sector Pensions, it is massively disingenuous to lump these liabilities in with the “National Debt”.

The state pension has no assets.

The state second pension has no assets.

Your gold platted pension has no assets.

That means all three are extremely risky.

That you can’t see that you’re running a huge risk. Take a GP. Most are sitting on pensions in the multi-million range, if there were real assets.

The choice is then, pay them their pensions, or get medical treatment.

I vote for the medical treatments.

You no doubt want your gold plated pension.

The problem you face is to convince people like me and others to give up on our medical treatment so you can live the life of Riley. We out number you, and that’s your problem. It’s a real risk.

Now if you have a fund, and other people have funds, then your interests and our interests coincide. We all want our pensions, and its hard to get a government to vote to steal them. You’re safer, and richer with a fully funded (unlike the state ‘fully funded schemes that have massive black holes).

Ah yes, the mythical pension. The one which don’t exist, and yet you crusade against. And I see, you rate people according to an arbitrary scale you create.

Well, on my version of that scale, it’s “banishment”. Walk, Blagger, walk.

No, on the basis of what they contribute.

For people like you who consume vast amounts by taxing poor people to fund your gold plated pensions, you don’t make the grade.

For people who can’t contribute much, but still try, they rank high.

For those that don’t try, they rank low.