Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

donaldtramp

StevieJ wrote: »

Well they are incorrect (standards these days :rolleyes:)

Shell’s scheme may be one of the few open to new members, but in January it made changes for new joiners, including increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65.
From The Sunday Times

June 7, 2009


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pensions/article6445429.ece

Stevie, Who cares?? 3 or 4, it doesn't really matter.
The fact is the private sector gets far less in pensions than the public sector FACT.

Your nit picking over trivialities changes nothing at all.

StevieJ

donaldtramp wrote: »

Stevie, Who cares?? 3 or 4, it doesn't really matter.

The ones joining the 4th

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

Capito.

So, ten years ago was good? Hmm, mybe I should be boasting about my old a levels? (DH did a baccalaureate in another EU country; MUCH, MUCH harder than UK equivalent IMO.)

Yes, I do know of a very successful partner at DH's firm who has ''a 2.1 from a former poly''. But he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

That's cos your DH works for a stuffy uppercrust firm, lir ;-)

bendix

By the way, if you want to see what the leading law firms are paying their new lawyers, check this out.

http://www.rollonfriday.co.uk/InsideInfo/CityFirms/tabid/68/Default.aspx

Read it and weep, carolt.

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Anyway, no-one's talking about changes to entitlements accrued - just those going forward

Depends, the article is vague. Does, eg, the OPs acrued 4 years of servce use the definition of final salary at the time (ie all of it) or the new definition of pensionable salary ie no higher than 36 years of 2%. I think it's the former but it's something I'd be looking at carefully.

Old_Slaphead

Andy_L wrote: »

Depends, the article is vague. Does, eg, the OPs acrued 4 years of servce use the definition of final salary at the time (ie all of it) or the new definition of pensionable salary ie no higher than 36 years of 2%. I think it's the former but it's something I'd be looking at carefully.

Maybe the scheme has to be closed to new contributions and payouts to be continued in line with schemes T&Cs upon member's retirement - then set up a new scheme with new rules ie average salary, hybrid DC/DB or whatever.

SuzieSue

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Maybe the scheme has to be closed to new contributions and payouts to be continued in line with schemes T&Cs upon member's retirement - then set up a new scheme with new rules ie average salary, hybrid DC/DB or whatever.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The fact is that we are all living too long (sometimes our lives after retirement are almost as long as our working lives) and it is going to get a whole lot worse. We simply do not have the money to pay for the sort of retirements people have become used to in the last 20 years when final salary schemes were widespread in both the public and private sector.

The government will not have the money to meet its obligations, so it will have to print money. This will fuel inflation (think Zimbabwe) and so a £12k tax-payer guaranteed pension will be worthless, as will everyone elses. If this is what everyone wants, then fine.

aah

there is always someone somewhere who wants to spend his time griping at the hard working low paid public servants, who pay their own taxes, make up a sizable proportion of the population, and PAY for their pensions

the worst thing is this site provides a platform for these reactionary old sods

MrCarrot

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

For info, I work for a smallish, profitable engineering company in Midlands with 100+ employees. Only the 2 directors earn above £35k (they earn around £55k - no employer pension, no company cars, no bonuses, no job security etc) and they work, at least, 7 days a week !

Experienced teachers, who have not achieved promotion, can eventually expect £35-40k + 20% employers pension + lots of free time + job security (which isn't available to many these days).

I'm glad someone pointed this out. I run my own business, and while I'm not prepared to disclose how much I earn, I do get a bit fed up of people walking into a job, getting what is effectively free training, working 5 days a week with excellent job security and then saying their £25k salary is poorly paid.

I work 6-7 days a week, it's taken me 10 years to get to where I am now and I have no pention, no job security and I have to buy my own car. I am under no illusion that if work dries up tomorrow my staff will be out of work, nobody is likely to give me a job and for me it's not a simple case of just signing on at the job centre.

I'm not complaining about this, however I do feel that based on my level of responsibility, lack of job security and the sheer number of hours that I work (probably 80-100 hours a week), I'm entitled to more than a nurse or a fireman. For me, I think £25k for a 9am to 5pm job (or even a 9am to 9pm job), 5 days a week with pension and training on the job is acceptable.

StevieJ wrote: »

I agree a disgrace, how are people expected to plan for their retirement when the rules can be changed at will?

That's why I don't lose sleep over not having a pension. I'll pay off my mortgage, invest in property and save up some money. I'd sooner rely upon myself than relying upon someone else to give me money in 38 years time.

SuzieSue

aah wrote: »

, make up a sizable proportion of the population,

Yes, that is the main problem with the public sector.