Huge row over pensions report

cheerfulcat

CIS wrote:

The early in my post above refers to 60 (maybe early was the wrong word ), my point was, if you and I are in different schemes and reach 60.

My pension is better than yours and i can afford to retire at 60, but you can't , does that mean I should be held back on drawing it to even the field ?, I think most peoples answer would be 'No', after all, I would have worked all my life for that pension.

So, why the wanted difference between the private and public sector ?, you cant start discriminating just because one person works for the private and one for the 'evil' publci sector.

But your pension is only better than mine because I pay your pension directly! So is it fair that you should be able to retire at 60 while I can't retire until seven years later, *because* I'm paying your pension?

This is absolutely not personal, btw - you actually sound like a nice and decent human being and I would not begrudge you a decent pension :-)

CIS

No offense taken, everyone has the right to opinion, and I love a good debate.

But the 67 date is the State Pension , not the occupational pension. You have a choice of taking your occupational pension at 60 , exactly the same as a civil servant.

A civil servant would draw an occupational pension at 60 and SP at 67, a private sector worker would draw an occupational pension at 60 and SP at 67. The difference ?? (apart from the funding ?)

I know the funding is an issue, but a lot of people are brought in to the wrong facts in that, as widely reported otherwise, public sector workers will not be given preferential treatment with reagrds to retireing as compared to everyone else.

dunstonh

I think the age should be increased to 65, with the exception of certain manual jobs and maybe specialist occupations where it's difficult to continue beyond 60. Clerical and management should certainly be 65.

Also, I would also increase the penalty for earlier retirement. The current system doesnt seem to penalise early retirement enough.

I dont begrudge there being a final salary scheme. I see that as the benefit which offsets lower earnings. Although, you could also say that a job for life is a significant benefit which results in a lower wage. I just think that a 60 retirement age is selfish when you are asking all taxpayers to fund that and the rest of us almost certainly seeing a 67 state retirement age to help fund it.

CIS

The change to 65 is something I dont begrudge, as long as all occupational schemes are brought in line , rather than penalising some people.

Maybe they should grade pensions relating to occupation, but that in itself could introduce more problems in to the management of occupational pension systems.

Like Ive said before my main bugbear is just the comparison of 60 against 67, its not really a fair comparison, it just makes good headlines.

dunstonh

The change to 65 is something I dont begrudge, as long as all occupational schemes are brought in line , rather than penalising some people.

I have to disagree there. If a funded pension scheme allows earlier retirement, then that has to be allowed as the benefits are based on what has been paid into it.

Maybe they should grade pensions relating to occupation, but that in itself could introduce more problems in to the management of occupational pension systems.

They already do with a number of occupations.

deemy2004

EdInvestor wrote:

The irony is that what gets up people's noses most about the public sector is often council tax - but council workers' pensions are not Government funded, they are private, the same as normal company final salary pensions.

That's one reason why you have to pay more council tax, to sort out their deficits.

Worst of both worlds?

Actually the deficit IS covered by the Goverment as per the blue book, last year it was £2 billion.

Pension costs borne by the tax payer - 2004.

State pension £48 billion
Unfunded (public sector) £7.5 billion
Unfinded Local Authority £2.4 billion
Other unfunded benefits £5.7 billion

As a comparison with private pensions
Private Pensions (funded) £42 billion

djohn2002uk

dunstonh wrote:

I just think that a 60 retirement age is selfish when you are asking all taxpayers to fund that and the rest of us almost certainly seeing a 67 state retirement age to help fund it.

From someone who purports to be a financial advisor, this comparison beggars belief. Is this the way you sell your products?

If you are a self employed FA, I expect you have built up a decent pension for yourself (albeit funded by you) which you can probably start drawing on at 50. Although you will not get your SP untill 65, is it right that I refer to you as being able to retire at 50? But if you take your pension you can still carry on in your chosen profession.
Most Civil Servants can not afford to retire at 60, they can draw their Civil Service pension at 60, but only if they leave the Civil Service, so they then have to find another job untill they get their SP at 65.
You also conveniently use the figure of 67 to exagerate the difference, a figure which hasn't even been agreed yet.

If you are going to make comparisons to further your argument, please compare Apples with Apples and not with Pears.

cheerfulcat wrote:

" Mr Tesco" does not send me demands to pay, nor does he have the power to jail me if I don't shop with him...private sector pensions are paid out of *profit* - in effect the *shareholder*, not the taxpayer, pays for them.

Totally Unbelievable! He doesn't need to jail you, if you don't buy your food from somewhere to help pay for someones pension, you starve. Where do you think the profits come from? Do I really have to explain again that they are from your purchases?

dunstonh

From someone who purports to be a financial advisor, this comparison beggars belief. Is this the way you sell your products?

What has that got to do with financial advice?

And what beggars belief?

If you are a self employed FA, I expect you have built up a decent pension for yourself (albeit funded by you) which you can probably start drawing on at 50.

If i wanted to, yes. Big difference here is that I am paying for my own savings and therefore I have the choice. I would swap what i have to pay for your final salary pension anyday.

But if you take your pension you can still carry on in your chosen profession.

As will you from next April.

Most Civil Servants can not afford to retire at 60,

Nor can most individuals.

so they then have to find another job untill they get their SP at 65.

Its excellent that you have finally agreed with us that increasing the civil service age to 65 is a good idea. This way they wont have to find another job.

You also conveniently use the figure of 67 to exagerate the difference, a figure which hasn't even been agreed yet.

Its hardly exagerate. It needs paying for and the increase in state retirement age is a possible outcome. Especially if the public sector retirement age stays at 60.

If you are going to make comparisons to further your argument, please compare Apples with Apples and not with Pears.

Like what?

Civil Servants get job security and the best pension scheme in the country and the taxpayer foots the bill. Not only that, all those tax payers are going to see the state retirement age increase or their tax bill increase or find the benefits reduced. In the meantime the civil service want to keep their cosy 60 arrangement.

I know the civil service tends to get a lot of left wing individuals who still have a desire to be communist but your responses are so out of touch with the real world, it is that which beggars belief.

mountainofdebt

The trouble with the public sector pension scheme is that the members have a cast iron guarantee that they will receive a pension, regardless of what age they retire.

Anyone in a private company pension scheme does not have that guarantee.

djohn2002uk

dunstonh wrote:

What has that got to do with financial advice?

And what beggars belief?
That your grasp of finances leaves me a little bewildered.



If i wanted to, yes. Big difference here is that I am paying for my own savings and therefore I have the choice. I would swap what i have to pay for your final salary pension anyday.
More like your charges will take into account the amount you need to pay for your pension, so clients are the ones paying. Shall we call them taxpayers?



As will you from next April.



Nor can most individuals.
No difference there then.



Its excellent that you have finally agreed with us that increasing the civil service age to 65 is a good idea. This way they wont have to find another job.
But I've never disagreed, a lot of the colleagues I worked with did work untill 65.



Its hardly exagerate. It needs paying for and the increase in state retirement age is a possible outcome. Especially if the public sector retirement age stays at 60.
It's an exageration.



Like what?

Civil Servants get job security and the best pension scheme in the country and the taxpayer foots the bill. Not only that, all those tax payers are going to see the state retirement age increase or their tax bill increase or find the benefits reduced. In the meantime the civil service want to keep their cosy 60 arrangement.
Just like the self employed want to keep theirs at 50?

I know the civil service tends to get a lot of left wing individuals who still have a desire to be communist but your responses are so out of touch with the real world, it is that which beggars belief.

Your last statement also beggars belief, in my time there I never knew one commie and very few left wingers as you call them. I'm certainly not either. I was an ordinary individual doing a normal job which was paying 20% more outside the public sector.
And here I'll tell you as a taxpayer a bit more. After 21 years Maggie in her wisdom decides she wishes to reduce the taxpayers burden by withdrawing the governments funding of the area that I worked in (looking after police and fire communications) in order to help a 2p reduction in income tax. Instead the burden was transferred to County Councils, so began the first of the large increases in local taxation where we paid far more than we saved in income tax.. Next she closed the department altogether leaving thousands to join her already long dole queues costing more money again. And theres another story there too of fiddling dole queue figures on a grand scale, of which I was part.