Local government pensions and the Tories

MPD

seagull112 wrote: »

At that time each one of the 25m households in this country was paying £900 to meet this bill.

Isn't it strange how the entire bill falls on households and never business taxes.

juliecallum

I work for local gov, pay into the pension and thinking about gettin private one too, Thats because my mum worked for them for over 20 years, Full Time and paid into pension from day one, She retired 5 years ago and gets less than £100 per week before tax, Not easy to manage, especially since dad passed away 6 weeks ago, We are even struggling to pay funeral costs.

TREVORCOLMAN

barny_100 wrote: »

The problem is that is a myth thanks to the 12 years of Labour.

From: http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/04/grasping-public-sector-pay-nettle.html using official Gov.Stats

Average pay means nothing at all. The figures are hugely titled because of the higher earners. The £582 quoted works out to just over 30k - more than twice what I and my other half earn - and she has to work weekends just to get this. There are many public servants who earn well below the UK average earnings - but of course papers like the Daily (Tory) Mail do not mention this when the talk about public sector HUGE pensions.

seven-day-weekend

juliecallum wrote: »

I work for local gov, pay into the pension and thinking about gettin private one too, Thats because my mum worked for them for over 20 years, Full Time and paid into pension from day one, She retired 5 years ago and gets less than £100 per week before tax, Not easy to manage, especially since dad passed away 6 weeks ago, We are even struggling to pay funeral costs.

I paid into the LGPS for ten years (two years part-time) and will get (based on today's rates) about £45 a week when I can draw it unreduced in 2014.

There will also be a £5.5k lump sum (based on today's rates).

It IS a good pension scheme, i would be the first to say this, but most LG pensioners get a similar small sum to that which I will on retirement, not the vast sums some have quoted here. And historically we have had lower pay than doing the equivalent job in private sector. So it's swings and roundabouts really.

EdInvestor

The reason why the public sector pensions have huge liabilities is not because the pensions payable are themselves all that high for most people, but because of the recent huge rise in the cost of funding pensions, due mainly to increased longevity and the cost of bells and whistles such as index linking and spouse pensions, but also due to lower returns in a low inflation/low interest rate environment..

For instance the cost to buy the basic state pension of £95 a week on the open market is now about £150,000.:eek: Pensions are very expensive these days.

One way of making them more cost effective would IMHO be to make the spouse pension optional. Married people are now the minority, so in the majority of cases, pension members and schemes are funding for benefits that will never be received.In addition, most people work, so have their own individual pensions, and the state pension has now been reformed so that women are not disadvantaged.

It's not hard to argue that spouse pensions have in many cases become outmoded, an unnecessary extra cost.

DiggerUK

This thread asks us to speculate what the tories will do with public sector pensions, we would be as wise to speculate what any of the parties will do.

Going back awhile I can recall that they were only ever referred to as having 'a copper bottomed guarantee" . But that was before the spin doctors got to work with their degrees in Alchemy.

As I'm in line for a gold plated, or copper bottomed, public pension I'm happy .

Why is it then that those who want to steal my pension that I have worked and paid for (6%), don't squeal quite so loudly about the gold plating that private pensioners are receiving.

My pension does come from taxes, so does my uniform, pay and the facilities I work with and from.
My pension is guaranteed with a lick and a promise by the government. I intend to hold them to that promise.

I have heard no voices raised by public sector workers to end the up front gold plating of private pensions, in the same obnoxious manner that some call for the end to public sector pensions.
After all aren't private pensions gold plated to either 20% for low earners, and 40% for high earners out of public finances.
At least they get their gold up front, not have to rely on a government promise.

Those who b1tch about public sector pensions should be careful about what they wish for.

EdInvestor

DiggerUK wrote: »

After all aren't private pensions gold plated to either 20% for low earners, and 40% for high earners out of public finances.

Everyone receives tax relief on pension contributions, public or private.

DiggerUK

EdInvestor wrote: »

Everyone receives tax relief on pension contributions, public or private.

I get the tax relief on my 6%.
Those in private schemes get tax relief on the % of their wages put into pensions. As any IFA is quick to point out putting 6% in a private scheme wont give you much in retirement.

If the argument put by those against public sector pensions, is that the public purse can't afford it, then why don't they propose an end to tax relief on pension contributions, thereby helping the public purse.
And yes, my question is rhetorical.

For me, it helps show that there is a body of people who regard me and mine as "Slum Dogs" who should remain as char wallahs.
Up with that I will not put.

seagull112

DiggerUK wrote: »

I get the tax relief on my 6%.
Those in private schemes get tax relief on the % of their wages put into pensions. As any IFA is quick to point out putting 6% in a private scheme wont give you much in retirement.

The problem is that the difference between what a public sector employee contributes towards their pension (usually between 5.5% & 11% depending on their salary) and what it actually costs (anything from 30% to 72% of their salary) is made up by their employer (all of us!) from taxes.

There are very few people outside the public sector who could afford to put such a huge percentage of their earnings into a pension fund.

Additionally, all public sector workers are guaranteed their end amount while the majority of private sector pensioners are not.

Just_landed

Nobody in this thread has mentioned that for the last 10 + years Our great leader has been pillaging the pension funds of FIVE BILLION POUNDS a year, no wonder the gap between private & public secter pensions are getting bigger. Which in my mind means I will get less out of my personal pension, never mind when he dropped the basic tax rate from 22% to 20% another 2% less tax relieve. "O" I do regret not getting a job with the council when I was a teen.