Public Sector Pensions - Today's Times

[bridge too far]

Well if those on lower incomes can't afford AVC's, they should at least be greatful for the move away from a final salary scheme to an average salary scheme. They will be better off with an average salary scheme so i'm sure you'll join me in applauding the coalitions proposals.

 

No they won't because they'll probably withdraw from the schemes altogether. Their contributions will be frozen at the point of withdrawal so will be worth bugger all when they do eventually retire. This will mean they will be dependent on the state pension, whatever that will be in years to come, and pension credits.

 

So we'll all end up paying top-ups for people who can't afford to pay into pension schemes whether in the public or private sector.

[dune]

You need to spend some time in our ofice then Dune. We have disciplinary procedures but we cant follow through because everyone is too afraid to sack people. Our sickness rate is a joke. Doctors are happy to sign people off for 6 months with stress at the drop of a hat but then people are stressed because w edont have enough staff to do the work.

 

I can quite believe it. The public sector is on a different planet to the real world. In the private sector people have knuckled down and got on with it, yet when it comes to the public sector these employees think they are above the economic constraints that are afflicting the western world.

[dune]

No they won't because they'll probably withdraw from the schemes altogether. Their contributions will be frozen at the point of withdrawal so will be worth bugger all when they do eventually retire. This will mean they will be dependent on the state pension, whatever that will be in years to come, and pension credits.

 

So we'll all end up paying top-ups for people who can't afford to pay into pension schemes whether in the public or private sector.

 

I have had to pay more into my pension in recent years. I didn't complain - I got on with it.

 

Can you at least accept that average salary pensions are better for the lower paid?

[bridge too far]

I have had to pay more into my pension in recent years. I didn't complain - I got on with it.

 

Can you at least accept that average salary pensions are better for the lower paid?

 

No I can't because I haven't seen actuarial evidence that this is so. When I first joined the NHS, shortly after a divorce and on average clerical wages, I simply couldn't afford to join the NHS pension scheme. Food and rent took priority. I could only afford to join once I'd been promoted to senior management level.

 

On that evidence, and judging by the experience of staff working for me, I can tell you that a large number of low paid NHS employees can't afford to join the scheme. So they're not going to benefit at all, regardless of how the pensions are calculated.

 

Incidentally the Local Government pension scheme is self funding and will be so for at least 25 years.

[dune]

No I can't because I haven't seen actuarial evidence that this is so.

 

So if it is shown that an average scheme benefits lower paid employees over a final salary scheme, will you support the change?

[bridge too far]

So if it is shown that an average scheme benefits lower paid employees over a final salary scheme, will you support the change?

 

The average scheme has already been brought into the NHS scheme. You miss my point that lower paid workers generally can't afford to contribute to a scheme, regardless of how it is calculated. So it won't make an iota of difference to them.

[Jonnyboy]

I note from reading today’s Times that Public Sector Unions are up in arms at Danny Alexander’s plans to raise the pension age in line with that of the private sector – In his words: “it’s unjustifiable to ask the taxpayer to work longer and pay more so that public sector workers can retire earlier and receive more”.

 

I bring this up as my missus has just qualified as a teacher and is slowly being brainwashed by her financially secure baby boomer colleagues with paid off mortgages and money in the bank. Last night she actually brought out the old “people became teachers because whilst the wages were low the pension was good”. Sorry but:

 

A- The country’s skint

B- Where in these teacher’s contracts doe’s it guarantee gold plated, recession proof busting pensions 9I only ask as in the Private Sector everything refers back to your contract

C- They get guaranteed wage rises every year, this year was the first year in 3 we did at my place (2%)

D- Striking will turn the public against them despite the undoubtedly amazing job they do

 

I am honestly seeing a savvy girl being brainwashed by the militant older teachers at her school. Fortunately I was able to make her see sense last night and I will continue to do so but I feel for other new members of the important public sector that don’t have an intelligent other at home to provide valuable balance to any argument.

 

A - the country isnt "skint," we are one of the richest countries in the world

B - the teachers are striking because it is in their contracts, contracts should be honoured imo.

C - that's the contract that was signed, it should be stuck to.

D - the public should support them to avoid a race to the bottom, where we all have crap working conditions unless you are one of "the elite"

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

A - the country isnt "skint," we are one of the richest countries in the world

 

What is your definition of skint? If all financial sector help is included (e.g. RBS etc) , the Net debt was £2252.9 billion or NEARLY 150% of GDP. I would say that is skint wouldn't you?

[Jonnyboy]

A - the country isnt "skint," we are one of the richest countries in the world

 

What is your definition of skint? If all financial sector help is included (e.g. RBS etc) , the Net debt was £2252.9 billion or NEARLY 150% of GDP. I would say that is skint wouldn't you?

 

Isnt that the equivalent of someone earning 20k a year having a 30K mortgage?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

 

Isnt that the equivalent of someone earning 20k a year having a 30K mortgage?

 

No!

[Stu Man Do]

Why should private sector workers have to work to 67 and public sector workers work until they are 60. That is unfair and unjustifiable.

 

Serious question could you seriously be teaching a class of 16 yr olds at age 67/68? Could you do it now?

[Lord Duckhunter]

So if it is shown that an average scheme benefits lower paid employees over a final salary scheme, will you support the change?

 

Tha coalition also propose that low-paid public sector workers on less than £15,000 would not face any increase in contributions, and those earning less than £18,000 would have their contributions capped at 1.5%.

[Jonnyboy]

 

No!

 

Indulge me?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

 

Indulge me?

 

GDP is not take home pay.

[View From The Top]

We may withdraw from one scheme and use the the money we would have paid in to pay our mortgage off quicker (5 years quicker saving well over £10k) and then invest the money we would have paid on that mortgage + the pensions payment to buy another house to rent out.

 

May workout a much better deal.

[Jonnyboy]

We may withdraw from one scheme and use the the money we would have paid in to pay our mortgage off quicker (5 years quicker saving well over £10k) and then invest the money we would have paid on that mortgage + the pensions payment to buy another house to rent out.

 

May workout a much better deal.

 

I suppose in theory if you own 2 houses outright you could live off the rent from one + the state pension...

[View From The Top]

I suppose in theory if you own 2 houses outright you could live off the rent from one + the state pension...

 

We'd also have one full pension plus my TPS which is worth a few quid in addition to other investments and inheritence so we're not going to go short.

 

Perhaps it's just time to look at things differently than before and to accept that saving for the future in the traditional way no longer applies.

[badgerx16]

Incidentally the Local Government pension scheme is self funding and will be so for at least 25 years.

How many more times Bridge, you can't go bringing facts into a debate on an Internet forum, especially when they go against the ConDem Government's justifications for it's non-manifesto based actions, or the spittle spumed blusterings of the right wing propagandists in the print media.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

How many more times Bridge, you can't go bringing facts into a debate on an Internet forum, especially when they go against the ConDem Government's justifications for it's non-manifesto based actions, or the spittle spumed blusterings of the right wing propagandists in the print media.

 

So you really cannot see that the pension system going forward is unaffordable?

 

Sadly Prudence did not just raid our private sector pensions he never saved money for public sector pensions.

[Lord Duckhunter]

How many more times Bridge, you can't go bringing facts into a debate on an Internet forum, especially when they go against the ConDem Government's justifications for it's non-manifesto based actions, or the spittle spumed blusterings of the right wing propagandists in the print media.

 

Lord Hutton who was a Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says "The costs of providing these pensions are rising – up by a third in recent years – and these extra costs have fallen almost entirely on the shoulders of taxpayers". And that it is "not sustainable". He also says that it "cannot be brushed under the carpet", and it needs to be "faced up to and solutions found."

 

Is that "the spittle spumed blusterings of the right wing propagandists in the print media" or a sensible statement of fact from a senior figure in public life ( and a Labour one at that).Do we follow your course, or his? With all due respect, I would have thought he knows slightly more about it than you.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Lord Hutton who was a Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says "The costs of providing these pensions are rising – up by a third in recent years – and these extra costs have fallen almost entirely on the shoulders of taxpayers". And that it is "not sustainable". He also says that it "cannot be brushed under the carpet", and it needs to be "faced up to and solutions found."

 

Is that "the spittle spumed blusterings of the right wing propagandists in the print media" or a sensible statement of fact from a senior figure in public life ( and a Labour one at that).Do we follow your course, or his? With all due respect, I would have thought he knows slightly more about it than you.

 

Ed Milliband has been very quiet on this as well.

[bridge too far]

With private sector pensions, the employee pays a contribution as does the employer. Where does the money for the employer's contribution come from? And does that employer get tax relief on the pension contributions he pays?

[trousers]

Where does the money for the employer's contribution come from?

 

Profit. Capitalism is a great distributer of wealth... ;-)

[dune]

Ed Milliband has been very quiet on this as well.

 

He's too busy tweetering.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003994/Ed-Milibands-Twitter-question-answer-session-backfires.html

[sadoldgit]

I and my staff all earn well below the national average wage level. I can assure you Dune that we, and the people at our level in the criminal justice system do live in the real world. There was a time when I would have agreed with you but over the last few years the harsh wind of economic change has hit the public sector very hard. THose higher up the management rung aren't so badly off financially but the vast majority do not earn decent money and many usually stay because they have child care issues and the leave and flexi time help. It is soul destroying being told you have to work even harder yet your pay is frozen, you have precious little chance of promotion and your business managers are cutting costs/staff to the extent that you can't do your job properly. In every level of my building we are under staffed. It is because we live in the real world and because we have to pay real world prices that we are hacked off. The one thing that kept many pople going year afte year was the thought that they would have a decent pension at the end of it - now even that is being taken away. More than half of my staff volunteered for the early exit scheme. If things were so wonderful don't you think they would want to stay?

[bridge too far]

Profit. Capitalism is a great distributer of wealth... ;-)

 

And how is this profit made?

[View From The Top]

More than half of my staff volunteered for the early exit scheme. If things were so wonderful don't you think they would want to stay?

 

We were gobsmacked at the amount and calibre of the staff who wanted to take the redundancy package.

 

What the usual thickies don't understand is that it's those of us in the frontline who are taking the hammering whilst those over paid, over blown and over promoted managers have insulated themselves.

 

We've shed 14% of teaching staff and 20% of support staff this year, on top of last years, but not one senior manager plus we've already had a pay freeze for 2 years but of course, we don't live in the real world.

[badgerx16]

Lord Hutton who was a Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says "The costs of providing these pensions are rising – up by a third in recent years – and these extra costs have fallen almost entirely on the shoulders of taxpayers". And that it is "not sustainable". He also says that it "cannot be brushed under the carpet", and it needs to be "faced up to and solutions found."

 

Is that "the spittle spumed blusterings of the right wing propagandists in the print media" or a sensible statement of fact from a senior figure in public life ( and a Labour one at that).Do we follow your course, or his? With all due respect, I would have thought he knows slightly more about it than you.

 

Hutton's report is open to question :

 

"Contribution levels have already increased in some schemes, and cost sharing has been introduced, so if people live longer than anticipated, extra costs are shared between employer and employees. And the civil service has replaced its final salary scheme with a career average scheme for people joining after July 2007.

 

These changes reduced the value of schemes to new entrants in the four main public sector pension schemes from 23 to 20 per cent of salary.

 

And it doesn’t end there. The Coalition have also taken action, by ensuring that employer pension contributions rise every year by the consumer prices index measure of inflation, rather than the retail prices index, which is higher because it includes housing costs. This has reduced the value of schemes from 20 to 17 per cent of salaries.

 

So the cost of schemes has fallen from 23 to 17 per cent of salary in the last five years.

 

When pensions experts talk about the sustainability of public sector pensions they usually measure this by looking at the cost as a percentage of national income (gross domestic product).

 

Figures from Lord Hutton’s report show that public sector pensions are expected to account for 1.9 per cent of GDP this year, remain at 1.8 per cent for the next decade, before falling to 1.4 per cent by 2059-60.

 

In other words, the cost of public sector pensions is expected to fall, even if no further action is taken."

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-pensions-timebomb/4266

 

And the point I was supporting is that the Local Government scheme is self-funded - so there is NO increased burden to the exchequer:

 

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/ten_top_facts_on_local_governm.aspx

 

If other public sector schemes do cause such a burden then that is another matter.

[JustMike]

You miss the point. The private sector is the wealth creator.

 

for who? that is the question

[Hedgehog]

I know someone in the public sector in the NHS, they have worked over about 30 years and when they started they signed a contract regarding their pension and posibility of retirement at 60. How can the employers rip up this agreement and add another 6 years on. Jobs are not so safe in the NHS as much as they were. Also are they not tax payers to, and are also contributing. Why in the past didn't more people work in the public sector or apply for jobs, was it because they could earn more in the private sector. Also if there is no chance of retirement at 60 you are going to have an ageing workforce with no jobs for youngsters.

 

What do people in the private sector paying into a pension do, are they still able to draw their pension before the age that the state pension kicks in. could they leave employment at 60, not sure as have never looked into it

[Thedelldays]

no matter how you slice it. it seems the country cant afford to continue paying this for all US public workers..

in my line of public work they changed the pension thingy 6 years ago...again, no choice just changed it (and not for the better)....did anyone bleat for us..? no....

also to save us getting another whack in the goolies it seems they have gone for the massive cull....about 1/6 of my organisation will be going...that is a huge amount..more than most have to deal with when avoiding the chop....luckily I have..

 

we could keep the spending as it is and just go nuts on taxes..make petrol £2 a litre, raise alcohol prices to that of a middle eastern country, what up air fare so no one can afford to go abroad...stop paying way over the top aid to other countries (some who dont need it)...shut the doors to economic migrants...stop the wars etc...various ways.......and many people, no matter what are not going to like it

 

sad time

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Hutton's report is open to question :

 

"Contribution levels have already increased in some schemes, and cost sharing has been introduced, so if people live longer than anticipated, extra costs are shared between employer and employees. And the civil service has replaced its final salary scheme with a career average scheme for people joining after July 2007.

 

These changes reduced the value of schemes to new entrants in the four main public sector pension schemes from 23 to 20 per cent of salary.

 

And it doesn’t end there. The Coalition have also taken action, by ensuring that employer pension contributions rise every year by the consumer prices index measure of inflation, rather than the retail prices index, which is higher because it includes housing costs. This has reduced the value of schemes from 20 to 17 per cent of salaries.

 

So the cost of schemes has fallen from 23 to 17 per cent of salary in the last five years.

 

When pensions experts talk about the sustainability of public sector pensions they usually measure this by looking at the cost as a percentage of national income (gross domestic product).

 

Figures from Lord Hutton’s report show that public sector pensions are expected to account for 1.9 per cent of GDP this year, remain at 1.8 per cent for the next decade, before falling to 1.4 per cent by 2059-60.

 

In other words, the cost of public sector pensions is expected to fall, even if no further action is taken."

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-pensions-timebomb/4266

 

And the point I was supporting is that the Local Government scheme is self-funded - so there is NO increased burden to the exchequer:

 

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/ten_top_facts_on_local_governm.aspx

 

If other public sector schemes do cause such a burden then that is another matter.

 

I am not so sure that it is open to question. There is a political consensus that something has to be done.

[badgerx16]

I am not so sure that it is open to question. There is a political consensus that something has to be done.

There was a political concensus that something had to be done to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but the foundation of that consensus was subsequently proved to be flawed. So why cannot this particular assertion be tested ?

[bridge too far]

Uh-oh! Do I smell U Turn no. 13 coming up?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13824173

[Jonnyboy]

I just hope we don't keep going the way of the US:

 

http://www.alternet.org/world/151312/9_countries_that_do_it_better%3A_why_does_europe_take_better_care_of_its_people_than_america?page=entire

 

(edit - v.good article imo)

[Thedelldays]

Uh-oh! Do I smell U Turn no. 13 coming up?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13824173

isnt that what a coalition is all about...or would you rather they went through with measures you clearly are completely against...?

 

maybe they are starting off at the worse possible scale, knowing they will have to "turn" back a little to something they expected...???

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

There was a political concensus that something had to be done to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but the foundation of that consensus was subsequently proved to be flawed. So why cannot this particular assertion be tested ?

 

I am sure you would agree that numbers are easier to interpret.

[revolution saint]

no matter how you slice it. it seems the country cant afford to continue paying this for all US public workers..

in my line of public work they changed the pension thingy 6 years ago...again, no choice just changed it (and not for the better)....did anyone bleat for us..? no....

also to save us getting another whack in the goolies it seems they have gone for the massive cull....about 1/6 of my organisation will be going...that is a huge amount..more than most have to deal with when avoiding the chop....luckily I have..

 

we could keep the spending as it is and just go nuts on taxes..make petrol £2 a litre, raise alcohol prices to that of a middle eastern country, what up air fare so no one can afford to go abroad...stop paying way over the top aid to other countries (some who dont need it)...shut the doors to economic migrants...stop the wars etc...various ways.......and many people, no matter what are not going to like it

 

sad time

 

We could also try a fairer distribution of wealth.

[badgerx16]

I am sure you would agree that numbers are easier to interpret.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli.

 

"There are liars, damned liars, and politicians" - (unattributed).

[bridge too far]

isnt that what a coalition is all about...or would you rather they went through with measures you clearly are completely against...?

 

maybe they are starting off at the worse possible scale, knowing they will have to "turn" back a little to something they expected...???

 

Or you could call it flip-flopping, a sign of a weak leader........ http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3645903/Tories-worse-for-u-turns-than-Labour.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#mySunComments

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/18/pensions-reform-unions-public-sector-treasury

 

How are these U-turns going to be funded, I wonder.

[dune]

We could also try a fairer distribution of wealth.

[revolution saint]

 

Cheers Dune, the only possible reason for posting that was to agree with me. Still makes me laugh as I suspect it does you as well.

[dune]

Cheers Dune, the only possible reason for posting that was to agree with me. Still makes me laugh as I suspect it does you as well.

 

Not at all. What you are advocating is communism and that worked really well didn't it.

[revolution saint]

Not at all. What you are advocating is communism and that worked really well didn't it.

 

Where did I say Communism? Pretty sure that was never mentioned.

[dune]

Where did I say Communism? Pretty sure that was never mentioned.

 

wealth distribution is a commie philosophy.

[badgerx16]

wealth distribution is a commie philosophy.

 

You do understand the terms socialism and altruism, don't you ?

[badgerx16]

If you had told Simon Hughes then that by 2010 his party would be shackled to the Tories he would have thought you a candidate for a straight jacket.

[bridge too far]

wealth distribution is a commie philosophy.

 

What a shame you didn't bother to read all of the link that Jonnyboy posted earlier. You will see that the happiest and most productive countries are those with a fairer distribution of wealth and better support networks. Here's the link again to save you the trouble of scrolling back

 

http://www.alternet.org/world/151312/9_countries_that_do_it_better%3A_why_does_europe_take_better_care_of_its_people_than_america?page=entire

[revolution saint]

wealth distribution is a commie philosophy.

 

Of course it isn't a commie philosophy - it's a central tenant of both capitalism and a mixed economy. Without wealth distribution capitalism wouldn't work would it? I was merely arguing for a fairer system of it.

[LGTL]

That clip is funny because Thatcher totally mis-interprets what he says. Why can't the rich still stay rich, rather then getting richer, to enable the poor to get richer? Thatcher just wanted the rich and the poor to stay where they were. They'd still have kids up chimneys if they could get away with it.