Local government pensions and the Tories

DiggerUK

Just_landed wrote: »

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 sector pensions are getting bigger.

And despite a lot of criticism from the other half of government, there is still no firm commitment to reverse this.

Old_Slaphead

DiggerUK wrote: »

And despite a lot of criticism from the other half of government, there is still no firm commitment to reverse this.

Of course they won't reverse it - they'll need that money to subsidise public sector pensions liabilities.

mikeb222

Well, after reading this thread I hold out no hope for mankind.

The private sector folk want ALL public sector pensions abolished!

What a state we are in when Police, nurses, Firemen etc, cant even rely upon the people of this once great nation to let them retire in dignity with 1/2 pay pension.
Because thats what it is. The pension will give them 1/2 of their current pay.
Is that fantastic, No, I don't think so.
Why shouldn't someone get 1/2 their pay after spending 30/40 years working for the state.
They will still have bills to pay, in some cases, mortgages, cars to run, but now their on half pay.

Do you not see the alternative?
That would be for ALL public sector employees to go cap in hand to the government for payouts.
Surely we don't want that!


What I have read on here gives me no confidence at all.

CLAPTON

mikeb222 wrote: »

Well, after reading this thread I hold out no hope for mankind.

The private sector folk want ALL public sector pensions abolished!

What a state we are in when Police, nurses, Firemen etc, cant even rely upon the people of this once great nation to let them retire in dignity with 1/2 pay pension.
Because thats what it is. The pension will give them 1/2 of their current pay.
Is that fantastic, No, I don't think so.
Why shouldn't someone get 1/2 their pay after spending 30/40 years working for the state.
They will still have bills to pay, in some cases, mortgages, cars to run, but now their on half pay.

Do you not see the alternative?
That would be for ALL public sector employees to go cap in hand to the government for payouts.
Surely we don't want that!


What I have read on here gives me no confidence at all.

firstly.. shouldn't everyone i.e. public sector and private sector workers get broadly equivalent pensions in retirement....
what proportion would you think reasonable? ..remember someone has to pay for it.

huge numbers of people would find 50% of their wage in retirement beyond their wildest dreams.

jem16

CLAPTON wrote: »

huge numbers of people would find 50% of their wage in retirement beyond their wildest dreams.

Including the majority of public sector workers.

DiggerUK

CLAPTON wrote: »

firstly.. shouldn't everyone i.e. public sector and private sector workers get broadly equivalent pensions in retirement....
what proportion would you think reasonable?

1. Yes.
2. What's wrong with your 50% suggestion as a starting point. It's hardly extravagant. A properly funded and organised scheme in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and you accept it can't be done!!

CLAPTON

DiggerUK wrote: »

1. Yes.
2. What's wrong with your 50% suggestion as a starting point. It's hardly extravagant. A properly funded and organised scheme in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and you accept it can't be done!!

to fund 50% of salary would be very expensive and would have to be paid by the working people either by producing profit to fund pension funds or in taxes to fund public sector unfunded schems... try working out the maths

Iin any event, 50% of salary is very good... retired people usually have no mortgage, are not bring up children, generally have most things they need and so have relatively inexpensive lifestyles.

DiggerUK

CLAPTON wrote: »

to fund 50% of salary would be very expensive and would have to be paid by the working people either by producing profit to fund pension funds or in taxes to fund public sector unfunded schemes... try working out the maths

I think it needs a post from an IFA at this point.
If a 21 year old, finished with their education, just started their first job asked you to plan for them receiving 50% of salary in retirement, would you advise them that they were dreaming.
Or would you be able to show them, that with with regular reviews it was achievable.

I have my own ideas on how pensions for all at a reasonable level could be provided.

P.S.
I'm not looking for a barney with an IFA, just an honest exchange. :beer:

CLAPTON

DiggerUK wrote: »

I think it needs a post from an IFA at this point.
If a 21 year old, finished with their education, just started their first job asked you to plan for them receiving 50% of salary in retirement, would you advise them that they were dreaming.
Or would you be able to show them, that with with regular reviews it was achievable.

I have my own ideas on how pensions for all at a reasonable level could be provided.

P.S.
I'm not looking for a barney with an IFA, just an honest exchange. :beer:

If you personally wanted to ensure a 50% pension then yes maybe you would need an IFA (although its trivial to work it out for yourself), however if you wanted to ask the question of whether EVERYONE could have a pension of 50% of their salary then you need an economist.

Unfortunately one can't just scale up from an individual to the whole nation.. if you are aware of the 'saving' paradox then a similar type of thinking will lead you will see why it's not easy to work out the implications of everyone being provided with a generous pension.

RobertoMoir

Leebobs wrote: »

I've read this entire thread and there seems to be a lot of venom on both sides of the debate.

That would be for two reasons:

This thread pops up in one guise or another every couple of months and turns into a massive flame war, due to mistakes and foolishness on both sides of the "debate" here. I suspect more than a few people are fed up making the same points over and over.

You can't boil down complex things like salary, working conditions and total compensation for "private sector" and "public sector" and start comparing those things against each other like they mean something, yet the press and politicians insist on doing it and people insist on believing them.

Example (and disclosure of interest I suppose). I work in a college. I earn what I think is a decent enough wage by any standard measurement (though less than average for my kind of job at my level in the private sector, even taking pension into account) and I'm actually quite happy with that, especially in these troubling times. However, there is little to no basis of comparison between my job, salary and pension and those of a lecturer at the same college, let alone between either one of those jobs and a police officer.

You tell me how we're supposed to pick the bones out of that to make some kind of comparison to anything (and on the other side, shall we compare those jobs to the "fat cat" wages the media would have you believe "the bankers" are on, or do we compare them to the less well reported and far more modest sums enjoyed by the people in the local high street branch of whoever you bank with). Good luck with that one.