BBC4 Programme on pensions
Options
Comments
-
Possibly this?
A Pensions PatchworkIn Canada, everything is big - including powerful pension funds such as the Ontario Teachers fund which owns half of Birmingham airport and other large projects around the world. It's all a far cry from the British pension scene, where a hundred local government pension funds each run their own affairs separately and pay costly fees to City firms for investment advice. Many of them still have financial deficits. Taxpayers have been forced to pick up bills to pay off those shortfalls and already hard-pressed local services have been stretched further. Lesley Curwen investigates how these individual funds are run and asks whether we should have larger funds with cheaper costs - like Canada does. And she asks whether more councils should be using pension money to invest in housing and infrastructure as a way to boost their local economies?
Was that on recently? The one I was thinking was definitely a couple of years ago, as I was at my old house making the best roast potatoes I've ever made.
I'll check it out though, Thanks!
EDIT, That was the one! I've been looking for that, Thanks!0 -
[Please] explain why we can't recruit Home Care Workers on £8.39 per hour plus benefits e.g. pension?
I expect it's because potential recruits don't value the generous pension contribution implied by the benefit.
If that were the case, it would make sense to scrap the expensive scheme, for these workers, and increase the headline pay rate to something like ten pounds per hour. It would probably be easier to recruit at that pay rate, and would be significantly cheaper for the employer.
If the generous pension scheme is not properly valued by employees more widely throughout the public sector, in terms of retention and recruitment, it should certainly be scrapped.
Public-sector defined-benefit schemes cost vast amounts of money to provide, given where long-term gilt yields are. In comparison, the competing private-sector defined-contribution schemes are far less expensive.
In any case, the fundamental point -- that fund-management costs are trivial compared to the cost of providing the promised benefits -- seems to be indisputable.
Warmest regards,
FAThus the old Gentleman ended his Harangue. The People heard it, and approved the Doctrine, and immediately practised the Contrary, just as if it had been a common Sermon; for the Vendue opened ...THE WAY TO WEALTH, Benjamin Franklin, 1758 AD0 -
FatherAbraham wrote: »I expect it's because potential recruits don't value the generous pension contribution implied by the benefit.
Or that councils have contracted it out to the private sector so the LGPS isn't part of the offer0 -
For myself, even if I assume my LGPS is worth 40% of my salary, I am being paid less for my labour now than I was in the private sector 8/9 years ago but the location and the fact that I don't have to work away from home makes that worthwhile for me.
If the nature of the job has changed, then we should be cautious about comparing remuneration packages.
Perhaps of more relevance is that while you have been working those eight years in the public sector, the value of your remuneration package has increased enormously.
One need only look at the staggering growth in cash-equivalent transfer values for those transferring out of schemes such as LGPS over the past five years to get an inkling of the scale of the pay rise which public-sector workers have enjoyed (despite their often very vocal complaints that their salaries have been frozen or increased by a nominal amount).
The whole thing is fascinating -- the general move to defined-benefit schemes in the private sector over the last twenty years had already improved the value of having a public sector job in relative terms, but the arrival of breathtakingly low interest rates and a world where economic growth is meagre have led to an astonishing relative overpayment of public-sector staff.
I tend to think that those who lobby for public-sector staff are very canny, and to a degree prefer not to learn about the economic consequences of their amazing windfall, since doing so would leave them open to accusations of wilful hypocrisy.
Warmest regards,
FAThus the old Gentleman ended his Harangue. The People heard it, and approved the Doctrine, and immediately practised the Contrary, just as if it had been a common Sermon; for the Vendue opened ...THE WAY TO WEALTH, Benjamin Franklin, 1758 AD0 -
FatherAbraham wrote: »I expect it's because potential recruits don't value the generous pension contribution implied by the benefit.
If that were the case, it would make sense to scrap the expensive scheme, for these workers, and increase the headline pay rate to something like ten pounds per hour. It would probably be easier to recruit at that pay rate, and would be significantly cheaper for the employer.
If the generous pension scheme is not properly valued by employees more widely throughout the public sector, in terms of retention and recruitment, it should certainly be scrapped.
Public-sector defined-benefit schemes cost vast amounts of money to provide, given where long-term gilt yields are. In comparison, the competing private-sector defined-contribution schemes are far less expensive.
In any case, the fundamental point -- that fund-management costs are trivial compared to the cost of providing the promised benefits -- seems to be indisputable.
Warmest regards,
FA
Agreed, many probably don't value it as they are probably badly informed and aware of personal finance and pensions (beyond trying to live month-month on their pay).
Don't believe they can scrap the pension benefit for "selected" groups of workers although they can opt out I believe if they can't afford their contribution.
Agree that the cost of any DB scheme is higher than a typical DC scheme and am very grateful that I fell into this role a few years ago.
Fund management costs are probably trivial but if 1% could be saved across all the schemes that will amount to a fair few ££££s. No different to what many of us on here do in terms of trying to maximise our returns and minimise our costs.0 -
FatherAbraham wrote: »If the nature of the job has changed, then we should be cautious about comparing remuneration packages.
Perhaps of more relevance is that while you have been working those eight years in the public sector, the value of your remuneration package has increased enormously.
One need only look at the staggering growth in cash-equivalent transfer values for those transferring out of schemes such as LGPS over the past five years to get an inkling of the scale of the pay rise which public-sector workers have enjoyed (despite their often very vocal complaints that their salaries have been frozen or increased by a nominal amount).
The whole thing is fascinating -- the general move to defined-benefit schemes in the private sector over the last twenty years had already improved the value of having a public sector job in relative terms, but the arrival of breathtakingly low interest rates and a world where economic growth is meagre have led to an astonishing relative overpayment of public-sector staff.
I tend to think that those who lobby for public-sector staff are very canny, and to a degree prefer not to learn about the economic consequences of their amazing windfall, since doing so would leave them open to accusations of wilful hypocrisy.
Warmest regards,
FA
I'm not one of those who has made vocal complaints but I do feel a bit aggrieved when comments about how overpaid Public Sector workers are and the value of the benefits.
Everybody has a reasonably free choice on where they work so if the grass is that much greener on this side of the fence, change employer and join the Public Sector.
Sitting on the other side complaining that someone else's grass is greener comes across to me as being a negative point of view0 -
I think the usual responses are something likeI'm not one of those who has made vocal complaints but I do feel a bit aggrieved when comments about how overpaid Public Sector workers are and the value of the benefits.
Everybody has a reasonably free choice on where they work so if the grass is that much greener on this side of the fence, change employer and join the Public Sector.
Sitting on the other side complaining that someone else's grass is greener comes across to me as being a negative point of view
"I have far too much pride to work for the public sector"
"I want to contribute to society"
"We can't all work for the public sector"
I think some people just like complaining about anything that leads to taxation.After years of disappointment with get-rich-quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme...and quick! - Homer Simpson0 -
I'm not one of those who has made vocal complaints but I do feel a bit aggrieved when comments about how overpaid Public Sector workers are and the value of the benefits.
You indignation may be unjustified. As I explained above, using a reference to CETV's to support my argument, public-sector workers have enjoyed an astonishing windfall since the era of low interest rates began, compared to private-sector workers in DC pension schemes.Everybody has a reasonably free choice on where they work so if the grass is that much greener on this side of the fence, change employer and join the Public Sector.
Sitting on the other side complaining that someone else's grass is greener comes across to me as being a negative point of view
What makes you think I don't work in the public sector? Do you have such a low opinion of the moral integrity of public-sector workers that you can't imagine that there could be one who acknowledges the enormous, and unfair advantage he or she now enjoys over private-sector workers?
Warmest regards,
FAThus the old Gentleman ended his Harangue. The People heard it, and approved the Doctrine, and immediately practised the Contrary, just as if it had been a common Sermon; for the Vendue opened ...THE WAY TO WEALTH, Benjamin Franklin, 1758 AD0 -
Think I'm going to leave it there as we seem to be getting into a 1:1 discussion which was not my intention.
Don't know where you work and have no general opinion on moral integrity of public sector workers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.5K Life & Family
- 248.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards