What are you public sector lot up to on Weds then?

[pap]

2008 - That would be before the sh1t really hit the fan when Lehman Brothers went t1ts up so of little relevance now.

 

Again, as for those working in the wealth creating sector of society being far less important than than those who are fortunet enough to work for the state .. well I'll be taking that as yet more evidence of the 'God given right' to better treatment that some/many state employees feel they're entitled to.

 

Do try to comprehend, if you have the intellect, why so many ordinary working people find that find of unbarably smug attitude insufferable.

 

Charlie - enjoy your posts, mate - but as I said in another thread, I wouldn't work in the public sector. I can't believe people do it for the money. Fair play to them for doing so.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Charlie - enjoy your posts, mate - but as I said in another thread, I wouldn't work in the public sector. I can't believe people do it for the money. Fair play to them for doing so.

 

Ha !

 

My first job on leaving school was to work for Poole Council - if only I knew then as a daft 16 year old what I know now as a knackered 48 year old then you can rest assured I'd have stayed there.

[pap]

Ha !

 

My first job on leaving school was to work for Poole Council - if only I knew then as a daft 16 year old what I know now as a knackered 48 year old then you can rest assured I'd have stayed there.

 

I did my public sector work for Ordnance Survey. Without a doubt, THE most interesting job I've ever had, and if money was no object, I'd be back there now playing with map data. Still, my side-interests of keeping the family fed, homed and clothed got in the way of that ambition

[pap]

Jeremy 'finger on the pulse' Clarkson has weighed into the debate, with predictably amusing/tragic results.

 

I like Clarkson, but what a nob.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/30/jeremy-clarkson-one-show-apology

[Viking Warrior]

Sick pay for Public sector workers is excellent. 6 months full pay and six months half pay . do the private sector have such good rates of sick pay? Of course they do paid membership of Bupa

[dune]

Were they wearing huge "I'm a teacher, look at me!" sandwich boards? I find it amusing your username is Jackanory.

 

Just been listening to 5 live and all the main shopping centres saw huge footfall increases.

[Dimond Geezer]

Sick pay for Public sector workers is excellent. 6 months full pay and six months half pay . do the private sector have such good rates of sick pay? Of course they do paid membership of Bupa

 

No mate, 2 months full pay, 1 at half pay, no private medical insurance either.

[thefunkygibbons]

Wow

 

5 days sick pay, then ssp only

 

Works though as we get little sick

[dune]

No mate, 2 months full pay, 1 at half pay, no private medical insurance either.

 

I have free axa ppp medical insurance. Never used it though, but it's there.

[Joensuu]

I've kept quiet on this subject, as I can see value in both arguments.

 

Were I in the Public sector, and were it my generous pension scheme being

slashed, I'd be livid. I'd most certainly be joining the protests, and arguing

with numpties like Dune.

 

But it's not my generous pension scheme being slashed. I'd love to have a

pension scheme generous enough to be slashed. When I retire I'll be lucky to

get a pension of £500 per month (at today's value). Quite simply, private

sector pensions for people on good salaries simply won't provide any form of

quality when it comes to retirement.

 

This has got me thinking. I'm paying tax, in fact I'm paying loads of tax (over

£1000 this month alone). Public sector pensions in 2011 are by far the most

expensive government expenditure (£122 billion). As such, the biggest

beneficiary of my taxes are Public pensions.

 

Why should I be paying so much tax to fund other people's pensions,

when I could only dream of having a similar pension in retirement?If I were to put myself back in the shoes of a Public sector employee, I'd

answer the question with 'It should be the private pensions which should be

increased, not the public decreased'. And I'd be right. We should all have a

quality retirement to look forward to after years of employment. But

unfortunately, this is also idealistic - where does the money come from? How

can a private company turn a profit, with large pensions added to the books?

Especially during a recession, many companies would struggle to afford the

extra burden (Certainly, for my employers the additional c. £120k pa would have

exceeded their 2010 profits). Of course, were the government run like a

business, the Department of Welfare and Pensions would be the first in line for

a substantial cut.

 

So I have to conclude that Private pensions are not ‘retirable’ - whereas

public pensions are not sustainable. A sensible solution would be to somehow

try to get both to meet in the middle, ideally with everyone in the UK getting

a monthly pension contribution of c. 10-12% (made up of say 5% employer + 5%

employee?). This would mean both small public sector cuts, and small private

sector rises. If the current imbalance is maintained the divisions will grow -

certainly I've noticed a growing resentment in the private sector of the public

sector's pensions.

 

Having said all of that, the real problem we face is that as a country we

aren't earning enough to keep spending as much as we already do. I can't

understand how any government (irrespective of party) can justify running a

deficit. As Pompey well know, if your outgoings exceed your income eventually

the proverbial will hit the fan. If the balance were the other way round, and

each year our government tucked some cash away, the interest on that surplus

could start to pay for improved services, without the need to increase tax -

surely that combines the dreams of both the Left and the Right (both welfare

with prudence anyone?).

[badgerx16]

Sick pay for Public sector workers is excellent. 6 months full pay and six months half pay . do the private sector have such good rates of sick pay? Of course they do paid membership of Bupa

 

Please quote the full facts if posting something potentially imflammatory :

 

This is governed by the National Occupational Sick pay Scheme :

 

[TABLE=class: MsoNormalTable]

[TR]

[TD=width: 284] Length of Service [/TD]

[TD=width: 284] CSP Entitlement [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 284] During 1st year of service [/TD]

[TD=width: 284] 1 month full pay + (after completing 4 months’ service) 2 months’ half pay [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 284] During 2nd year of service [/TD]

[TD=width: 284] 2 months’ full pay + 2 months’ half pay [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 284] During 3rd year of service [/TD]

[TD=width: 284] 4 months’ full pay + 4 months’ half pay [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 284] During 4th and 5th years of service [/TD]

[TD=width: 284] 5 months’ full pay + 5 months’ half pay [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 284] After 5 years’ service [/TD]

[TD=width: 284] 6 months’ full pay + 6 months’ half pay [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[Lord Duckhunter]

A bloke on Sky news made a great point.

 

If the Public sector pensions are affordable and Osbourne and Cameron are telling porkies (the NUT claim there is a £46.4 billion surplus paid into their fund) then why dont the public sector unions take over the running of their members pensions?

 

For some reason the union henchman in the studio didn't want to answer that point...........

[Viking Warrior]

Not being inflamatory badger just posing a question re the debate re public vs Private sectors

but as usual you have jumped to the wrong conclusion

Im fully aware of the occupational sick pay scheme. dont forget if you fall out of OSP you still get SSP

In scotland you do not get OSP until you have done 26 weeks service

 

Service at commencement

of absence from duty Full Allowance for Half Allowance for

 

Less than 26 weeks

Nil Nil

26 weeks or more but less than 1 year 5 weeks 5 weeks

1 year but less than 2 years 9 weeks 9 weeks

2 years but less than 3 years 18 weeks 18 weeks

3 years but less than 5 years 22 weeks 22 weeks

5 years and over 26 weeks 26 weeks

[badgerx16]

A bloke on Sky news made a great point.

 

If the Public sector pensions are affordable and Osbourne and Cameron are telling porkies (the NUT claim there is a £46.4 billion surplus paid into their fund) then why dont the public sector unions take over the running of their members pensions?

 

For some reason the union henchman in the studio didn't want to answer that point...........

 

The LGPS is administered by Local Authorities ( the employers ), who invest the funds on behalf of the member employees. It has no direct link to the Government, other than the over-riding regulations concerning how it should be managed.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The LGPS is administered by Local Authorities ( the employers ), who invest the funds on behalf of the member employees. It has no direct link to the Government, other than the over-riding regulations concerning how it should be managed.

 

What he was saying was that if the schemes and affordable, and some are in surplus as was claimed, then the unions finance any short fall or keep any surplus.

 

If they are not going to cost us any more as a portion of GDP in the future, lets get the taxpayer to contribute what they did in the last year of the Labour administration, increase it by inflation each year and then the unions can make up any shortfall. I'm sure we can work out what the taxpayers contribution was in 2009, we should give this amount (plus inflation) to the Brothers, to divi out to their members. If it's affordable, then pensions will stay the same, if not The Brothers can either get their members to work longer ,pay more in, or take it out of their own union funds.

[badgerx16]

What he was saying was that if the schemes and affordable, and some are in surplus as was claimed, then the unions finance any short fall or keep any surplus.

 

If they are not going to cost us any more as a portion of GDP in the future, lets get the taxpayer to contribute what they did in the last year of the Labour administration, increase it by inflation each year and then the unions can make up any shortfall. I'm sure we can work out what the taxpayers contribution was in 2009, we should give this amount (plus inflation) to the Brothers, to divi out to their members. If it's affordable, then pensions will stay the same, if not The Brothers can either get their members to work longer ,pay more in, or take it out of their own union funds.

 

 

I don't take issue with any of that, in fact the % of GDP is supposed to be going down. Where there seemed to be an issue on Newsnight yesterday was that Mark Serwotka was claiming the increased contributions being demanded were not, in fact, going to be fed into the pension schemes, but would be siphoned off by the Treasury.

[The Cat]

Just been listening to 5 live and all the main shopping centres saw huge footfall increases.

 

Probably parents taking their kids who were off school shopping, because when faced with an extra day to spend with their kids a lot of people can't think of any other way to entertain them than buying them more crap they don't need.

[LGTL]

What this strike will achieve is that the deal that finally comes will be better for public sector workers then if they hadn't have bothered and just accepted it to begin with hands down. Surely that's the point of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Where there seemed to be an issue on Newsnight yesterday was that Mark Serwotka was claiming the increased contributions being demanded were not, in fact, going to be fed into the pension schemes, but would be siphoned off by the Treasury.

 

That was the exact point that was made on Sky news, that led to the response I posted. I think it was a member of the IFS, who then suggested that if that was the case, then unions take over the funding of members pensions. Instead of welcoming it, as you have done. The union representitive waffled, stalled and ignored the susgestion. Leading me to the conclusion that they are well aware that there will be a funding hole, that the tax payer will have to fill.......

[The Cat]

Having said all of that, the real problem we face is that as a country we aren't earning enough to keep spending as much as we already do.

 

Surely a lot of that is due to people living beyond their means, people wanting stuff they can't afford and not caring about the consequences of having to repay what they have borrowed?

 

Just look at the cars some people drive. Why take out a loan and spend £15 to £20k on a car when you can buy a decent one for a few thousand second hand. Why buy a house that costs £300k when one a third less will suffice?

 

Or maybe it's just me and that's too simplistic an approach.

[badgerx16]

Leading me to the conclusion that they are well aware that there will be a funding hole, that the tax payer will have to fill.......

 

Which brings us nicely back to the question 'why won't the Treasury permit an independent audit of the schemes ?', so as to verify if it is indeed the case that certain of the public sector schemes, such as the LGPS, are cash rich and do not require propping up by the taxpayer.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Which brings us nicely back to the question 'why won't the Treasury permit an independent audit of the schemes ?', so as to verify if it is indeed the case that certain of the public sector schemes, such as the LGPS, are cash rich and do not require propping up by the taxpayer.

 

If that's the case, then lets let the union take them over.

 

There's no need for an audit, the unions say that the schemes are cash rich and dont need taxpayers money, If I was George Osborne I'd say "great, here you go, take them over". Take the LGPS out of political hands and hand them over to the unions, who are there to protect their members interests. Surely it's a win-win situation, if there is a hole, Union members fill it not taxpayers and if there isn't the members can have a decent retirement fund.

 

Why on earth aren't the unions calling for this option.Is it because they know that in future there will be a hole which the tax payer will have to fill?

[badgerx16]

If that's the case, then lets let the union take them over.

 

There's no need for an audit, the unions say that the schemes are cash rich and dont need taxpayers money, If I was George Osborne I'd say "great, here you go, take them over". Take the LGPS out of political hands and hand them over to the unions, who are there to protect their members interests. Surely it's a win-win situation, if there is a hole, Union members fill it not taxpayers and if there isn't the members can have a decent retirement fund.

 

Why on earth aren't the unions calling for this option.Is it because they know that in future there will be a hole which the tax payer will have to fill?

 

Because in the same way as the Government the unions are self serving and dogmatic, and this is more to do with public posturing on both sides to impress their own respective audiences.

[Verbal]

If that's the case, then lets let the union take them over.

 

There's no need for an audit, the unions say that the schemes are cash rich and dont need taxpayers money, If I was George Osborne I'd say "great, here you go, take them over". Take the LGPS out of political hands and hand them over to the unions, who are there to protect their members interests. Surely it's a win-win situation, if there is a hole, Union members fill it not taxpayers and if there isn't the members can have a decent retirement fund.

 

Why on earth aren't the unions calling for this option.Is it because they know that in future there will be a hole which the tax payer will have to fill?

 

This is BRILLIANT! I can't imagine a single idea that would hand trade unions such colossal power. As newly created pension funds, under the Duckhunter Plan, they would have a sway over government policy at the highest level, using their investment power to wreak havoc on anything they didn't like.

 

The revolution starts here - thanks Ducky!

[bridge too far]

The LGPS is administered by Local Authorities ( the employers ), who invest the funds on behalf of the member employees. It has no direct link to the Government, other than the over-riding regulations concerning how it should be managed.

 

And workers who contribute to the pension schemes aren't necessarily union members. The schemes have to be independent or, at least, have trustees representing all 'sides'.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is BRILLIANT! I can't imagine a single idea that would hand trade unions such colossal power. As newly created pension funds, under the Duckhunter Plan, they would have a sway over government policy at the highest level, using their investment power to wreak havoc on anything they didn't like.

 

The revolution starts here - thanks Ducky!

 

unfortunately, I am unbale to take credit for this idea. It was a expert on Sky news who suggested it, quickly shot down by the union Brother, who went white at the thought of having to fund the gap instead of taxpayers.

 

But unions having "colossal power" at the heart of Govenrment and "being able to wreak havoc on anything they like" is nothing new, they already have veto over choosing the Labour leader,and provide 80% of their funds.

[um pahars]

A bloke on Sky news made a great point.

 

If the Public sector pensions are affordable and Osbourne and Cameron are telling porkies (the NUT claim there is a £46.4 billion surplus paid into their fund) then why dont the public sector unions take over the running of their members pensions?

 

For some reason the union henchman in the studio didn't want to answer that point...........

 

I believe the NUT claim of £46billion surplus is an historical figure and is the net surplus of contributions vs payments over a 90+ year lifespan of the scheme (i.e. in early years millions must have been paid in and not much drawn out).

 

Of course this would not be available to be given to the NUT as it's just been put in to the coffers of the Exchequer over the decades.

 

Additionally, I'm not sure how robust that figure is, but not seen it rebutted anywhere.

[buctootim]

Not sure where the debate about deficits or surpluses comes from. The teachers pension scheme is unfunded, paid for out of taxation and current employed teacher contributions. There is no big pot of money - in deficit or otherwise

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

No but they may as well have been seeing as i met 2 aunties, 1 other teacher from gf's school and a good friends sister who is a teacher out with her mum who works for the council.

 

There you have it TSW, EVERYONE in Winchester yesterday was a teacher. Thanks for clearing that up Storytime.

[um pahars]

Not sure where the debate about deficits or surpluses comes from. The teachers pension scheme is unfunded, paid for out of taxation and current employed teacher contributions. There is no big pot of money - in deficit or otherwise

 

As I thought, the £46bn figure comes from the NUT (got this piece off mumsnet - forst result on the Google search)

 

This note explains the basis for the NUT's calculations on payments into and from the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) since its establishment in 1923.

 

One of the justifications given by the Government for its reforms of public sector pension schemes is that, each year, more money is being paid out in pensions than is being paid in through employer and employee contributions.

 

Those who make this argument usually ignore the fact that, for most of the history of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, substantially more money was paid in through contributions each year than was paid out in pensions. In the first year of the TPS, teachers paid £4.1 million in pension contributions but received just £5,840 in pensions and lump sums.

 

The NUT has therefore sought to calculate total income and expenditure from 1923 to the present. For the period from 1923 to 2004, the data has been obtained from the periodic TPS actuarial valuation reports carried out for those years as presented to Parliament. Since the Government Actuary's Department has not yet carried out an actuarial valuation for the period since 2004, the TPS’s annual Resource Accounts have been used to provide the relevant data for the years from 2005 to the present.

 

To present these figures in terms of current values, the relevant figure for each individual year has been revalued in line with real growth in GDP across the period since 1923.

 

The Government itself carries out a similar exercise when revaluing the notional assets and liabilities of the TPS during the periodic actuarial valuations of the scheme, using a "discount rate" (for the 2008 valuation, a proposed rate of RPI plus 2.25 per cent) as a proxy for GDP growth in future years. The NUT is therefore using the Government’s own logic in carrying out this exercise but is able to use actual rather than predicted GDP growth data.

 

If the figures for each year are revalued in line with GDP growth, then contributions paid into the TPS exceed pensions and other benefits paid out from the TPS by £46.4bn. The data series used is a TUC series with GDP expressed in 2005 prices. The income received by Government during the early and middle years of the scheme – when money was being taken in and little paid out – easily outweighs, when revalued appropriately, the payments it has been making more recently.

 

The NUT is not arguing that this sum of money is available to hand. The information is merely offered to illustrate the long term nature of pensions funding and the complexity of the arguments involved. Nevertheless, it can fairly be said that the Government has benefited from a long series of cheap loans from teachers’ pension contributions; but is now complaining about paying the pensions promised in return, now that they have fallen due.

 

 

 

National Union of Teachers

November 2011

[Minty]

That's the kind of information I like to see - it helps build a picture and adds meat on the bones of what can otherwise be a pretty tedious 'i say black, you say white' argument, with real information seriously lacking.

[dune]

There you have it TSW, EVERYONE in Winchester yesterday was a teacher. Thanks for clearing that up Storytime.

 

 

Funny as f/ck.

[um pahars]

That's the kind of information I like to see - it helps build a picture and adds meat on the bones of what can otherwise be a pretty tedious 'i say black, you say white' argument, with real information seriously lacking.

 

Even though I am a member of the NUT, I do think it needs to come with a health warning as it's obviously going to be pushing at things from their position. I'm sure the Government of the day would put their side out giving the contra view, and as usual the truth will be somewhere in the middle.

 

I've come away from the last few days a bit more enlightened with regards information from all sides and my overwhelming thoughts are:

 

1) The gold plated pensions story has been severely over egged.

 

Whilst they are of good value to the public sector employer and whilst en masse they add up to a fair whack for the state, with an average of about £6,000, they're not the champagne swigging, globe trotting, holiday home retirement sum I thought they would be. I'd be jealous of Freddie Goodwin's £703,000, not sure that frothy at the mouth over a £6,000 one.

 

2) The lack of provision of Private Sector pensions is an absolute disgrace, and perhaps more worrying it's a timebomb that will come back to haunt us as a society.

Edited 1 December, 2011 by um pahars

[Minty]

Agreed on all points. All information that comes out has SOME bias, but at least it's something.

[Jonnyboy]

unfortunately, I am unbale to take credit for this idea. It was a expert on Sky news who suggested it, quickly shot down by the union Brother, who went white at the thought of having to fund the gap instead of taxpayers.

 

But unions having "colossal power" at the heart of Govenrment and "being able to wreak havoc on anything they like" is nothing new, they already have veto over choosing the Labour leader,and provide 80% of their funds.

 

Id rather millions of working people had this power than Rupert Murdoch and Lord Ashcroft.

[Saintandy666]

Just saw my brother today, having to now pay in substantially more for a much smaller pension.

[SaintSi]

**** that, i'm just gunna **** my money up the wall, i'l die before i hit the retiremnt age the way things are going, and everything ive put in will be wasted.

[Clapham Saint]

As I thought, the £46bn figure comes from the NUT (got this piece off mumsnet - forst result on the Google search)

 

This note explains the basis for the NUT's calculations on payments into and from the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) since its establishment in 1923.

 

One of the justifications given by the Government for its reforms of public sector pension schemes is that, each year, more money is being paid out in pensions than is being paid in through employer and employee contributions.

 

Those who make this argument usually ignore the fact that, for most of the history of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, substantially more money was paid in through contributions each year than was paid out in pensions. In the first year of the TPS, teachers paid £4.1 million in pension contributions but received just £5,840 in pensions and lump sums.

 

The NUT has therefore sought to calculate total income and expenditure from 1923 to the present. For the period from 1923 to 2004, the data has been obtained from the periodic TPS actuarial valuation reports carried out for those years as presented to Parliament. Since the Government Actuary's Department has not yet carried out an actuarial valuation for the period since 2004, the TPS’s annual Resource Accounts have been used to provide the relevant data for the years from 2005 to the present.

 

To present these figures in terms of current values, the relevant figure for each individual year has been revalued in line with real growth in GDP across the period since 1923.

 

The Government itself carries out a similar exercise when revaluing the notional assets and liabilities of the TPS during the periodic actuarial valuations of the scheme, using a "discount rate" (for the 2008 valuation, a proposed rate of RPI plus 2.25 per cent) as a proxy for GDP growth in future years. The NUT is therefore using the Government’s own logic in carrying out this exercise but is able to use actual rather than predicted GDP growth data.

 

If the figures for each year are revalued in line with GDP growth, then contributions paid into the TPS exceed pensions and other benefits paid out from the TPS by £46.4bn. The data series used is a TUC series with GDP expressed in 2005 prices. The income received by Government during the early and middle years of the scheme – when money was being taken in and little paid out – easily outweighs, when revalued appropriately, the payments it has been making more recently.

 

The NUT is not arguing that this sum of money is available to hand. The information is merely offered to illustrate the long term nature of pensions funding and the complexity of the arguments involved. Nevertheless, it can fairly be said that the Government has benefited from a long series of cheap loans from teachers’ pension contributions; but is now complaining about paying the pensions promised in return, now that they have fallen due.

 

 

 

National Union of Teachers

November 2011

 

This is very simplistic and whether intentional or not, presents a misleading picture.

 

Virtually every pension scheme will have received more in contributions than it has paid out in benefits.

 

The issue isn't how much has been paid out so far but the obligations that have been accrued obliging the scheme to make payments in the future.

 

Ignoring the current value of these obligations results in only looking at half the picture. I have no idea what the value of the liabilities are (and neither do the NUT from the look of that statement) but claiming that a scheme must be solvent because more has ben paid in than has been paid out just suggests a lack of understanding of pension scheme finances.

[um pahars]

This is very simplistic and whether intentional or not, presents a misleading picture.

 

Virtually every pension scheme will have received more in contributions than it has paid out in benefits.

 

The issue isn't how much has been paid out so far but the obligations that have been accrued obliging the scheme to make payments in the future.

 

Ignoring the current value of these obligations results in only looking at half the picture. I have no idea what the value of the liabilities are (and neither do the NUT from the look of that statement) but claiming that a scheme must be solvent because more has ben paid in than has been paid out just suggests a lack of understanding of pension scheme finances.

 

Indeed, when I read it I immediatgely thought, well thanks for the history lesson, but how about projecting forward?

 

They do try and caveat the piece with the last paragraph, but what would have been beneficial to me would be to say as of today, under the defined benefit scheme we have the following liabilities. I have no idea whether this "historical surplus" could cover these or not, but as you say it's only half the story.

 

However, as with private sector defined benefit schemes I do think they should be honoured to all existing members, whilst looking for an alternative for new entrants.

 

(does anyone know of any Private Sector schemes where companies pulled promised defined benefits pensions from existing members???)

[Clapham Saint]

Indeed, when I read it I immediatgely thought, well thanks for the history lesson, but how about projecting forward?

 

They do try and caveat the piece with the last paragraph, but what would have been beneficial to me would be to say as of today, under the defined benefit scheme we have the following liabilities. I have no idea whether this "historical surplus" could cover these or not, but as you say it's only half the story.

 

However, as with private sector defined benefit schemes I do think they should be honoured to all existing members, whilst looking for an alternative for new entrants.

 

(does anyone know of any Private Sector schemes where companies pulled promised defined benefits pensions from existing members???)

 

Yes. Mine.

 

Well, sort of.

 

Whilst at my previous employer the scheme was changed for existing members from "final salary" to "average salary".

 

The contributions that I had made up to that point, (I was about 25) were treated as purchasing 1/80 (or whatever it was) of my current salary, rather than (as I had expected when I made the payments), the salary that I would have been earning imeadiately prior to (hopefully) making partner. A considerable difference.

 

I wasn't impressed so understand why the strikers are upset, but ultimately the alternative was that the pension scheme liability risked bringing the company down.

[Viking Warrior]

Um Yes

 

(does anyone know of any Private Sector schemes where companies pulled promised defined benefits pensions from existing members???)

 

IBM . My sister along with others have a tribunal case against them being heard next May. There has already been a number of significant legal discussions on what IBM have done.

[Viking Warrior]

Um Pahars for your information

 

IBM is facing legal action from 250 ex-employees who claim they were "forced" to take early retirement before changes to the pension scheme.

 

The action is being taken by former workers across the UK, including many at the head office in Portsmouth.

 

They used to be able to retire early, losing 3% of their annual pension for each year before 60, but the new scheme now sees 6% lost each year before 63.

 

IBM said its changes were legal and it will contest any action.

 

Under the old scheme if an employee with an annual pension of £40,000 retired at 55 they would sacrifice £6,000 (15%) over the five years before their 60th birthday.

 

'Extremely bitter'

 

But under the new scheme the same person would sacrifice £19,200 (48%) over eight years, from their annual pension.

 

The employees are claiming unfair dismissal and age discriminatio

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

2) The lack of provision of Private Sector pensions is an absolute disgrace, and perhaps more worrying it's a timebomb that will come back to haunt us as a society.

 

And who do we thank for destroying the pensions of millions of hardworking low paid private workers, well none other than Mr G Brown. Despite being warned by Internal Treasury forecasts that changes in his first budget would "cause a shortfall in existing assets of up to £75 billion" and that "employers would have to contribute about an extra £10 billion a year for the next 10 to 15 years to get pension scheme funding back on track".He was also also advised that the worst effected victims would be the poorest members of society(Documents were released on 30th March 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act from Her Majesty's Treasury).

 

Now, who on earth would advise Brown to go ahead with these changes despite those dire warnings. Well, he had 2 "special" advisers, Mr Ed Balls and Mr Ed Milliband.

 

All of a sudden Balls and Milliband are on the side of hardworking low paid workers, fighting for the pension rights of these people. What is the difference, is it because they are in the pockets of the unions, or is it because they care about the public, but not the private sector.

 

To repeat Brown, Balls and Milliband were warned what would happen, were warned it would hit the poorest hardest, yet still went ahead.

 

It was short termism of the highest order. They got money then and there, to spend on their pet projects, but who is going to look after the poorest private sector workers who lost their pensions, our children are and our children's children.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

 

Funny as f/ck.

 

Hi dune, can you tell me yet why the government refuses to carry out an audit on the cost of public sector pensions? Cheers, I mean, what have they got to hide?

[dune]

Hi dune, can you tell me yet why the government refuses to carry out an audit on the cost of public sector pensions? Cheers, I mean, what have they got to hide?

 

I can't and I have no interest. I'm just well happy we have a government that is sorting the public sector out. It's long overdue.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I can't and I have no interest. I'm just well happy we have a government that is sorting the public sector out. It's long overdue.

 

Can you tell me why the government refuses to carry out an audit on the cost of public sector pensions? They're obviously affordable. No interest? I find that rather comical. Obviously I'm happy for you to admit that the pensions are affordable and that the ****servatives have totally underestimated the depth of feeling, but I'm a fair man, and am more than willing to allow you to defend these prats.

Edited 2 December, 2011 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[um pahars]

And who do we thank for destroying the pensions of millions of hardworking low paid private workers, well none other than Mr G Brown.

 

I think Mr Brown (and his advisors) have a lot to answer for regarding their pension raid back in 1997, and his actions certainly reduced the value of the funds, in turn reducing pensions that would be paid out to many would be pensioners. It also saw the death knell of the defined benefits pension for many in the Private Sector. I certainly don't think it panned out as he first imagined!!

 

But it is only one part of a much larger problem that included the original reduction in tax relief by Norman Lamont, pension holidays in the good times, an overall reduction of pension schemes in the Private Sector etc etc etc. With the reduction of the number of workers in a private pension of any "merit", it just seems to me that more and more pressure will be put on to the state in the future.

 

I don't want this to get in to a Party Political debate, although I accept that politcial decisions, political ideology, political priorities etc will have influenced and will continue to influence policy.

Edited 2 December, 2011 by um pahars

[rocknrollman no2]

I can't and I have no interest. I'm just well happy we have a government that is sorting the public sector out. It's long overdue.

I think its more important that this government sort out the millions of unpaid tax that is owed by rich contributors to the Tory party and by big companies such as Vodaphone.

If all of these Tory friendly people and businesses paid what was due,then there would not be any reason for any cuts.

Over to you Dune!

[bridge too far]

When Thatcher allowed a pensions holiday for a decade (where employers were permitted to pay no contributions but the employees had to continue to do so) were the employers asked to then pay the missing contributions when the 'holiday' was over? If not, how did that affect the pensions of the employees who had continued to contribute?

[badgerx16]

When Thatcher allowed a pensions holiday for a decade (where employers were permitted to pay no contributions but the employees had to continue to do so) were the employers asked to then pay the missing contributions when the 'holiday' was over? If not, how did that affect the pensions of the employees who had continued to contribute?

 

Now, now, BTF, you know full well that Thatch was infallible in all she did for the greater good of this wonderful, and under her tenure totally united, nation of ours.

Edited 2 December, 2011 by badgerx16