Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

SuzieSue

r5cwgtt wrote: »

we have a war that is costting us billions... Common market millions but lets tackle the wee folk in the council ???

If things carry on as they are, the public sector pensions will cost us TRILLIONS (not billions).

carolt

SuzieSue wrote: »

If things carry on as they are, the public sector pensions will cost us TRILLIONS (not billions).

Well hang on a minute, there are millions (is it 6 million?) public sector workers currently, not to mention however many million more already retired.

Are you suggesting they should all get no pension?

If you nicked the pensions of millions of generally relatively low-paid workers, aside from any moral angle, you'd just be paying for their pensions out of the general state pensions & means testing - as the vast majority would be in dire poverty if you nicked what they'd been told all along to rely on.

So you wouldn't be saving anything - you'd just be transferring the source of their pension from one part of the state to another.

Unless you're suggesting letting millons of people starve in old age?

The fact is, you're not talking about 1 or 2 people claiming untold riches each - you're talking about millions of ordinary people claiming really quite small pensions each.

That seems to get forgotten in this urge to level down - to ensure that because some people in the private sector have, unfortunately, lost their pensions, everyone else should be forced to be equally miserable.

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

Thank you. It was me who got lucky though, he is scarily wonderful! :cool:

Awwww.

Sweet.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

That seems to get forgotten in this urge to level down - to ensure that because some people in the private sector have, unfortunately, lost their pensions, everyone else should be forced to be equally miserable.

I think what most of us want is fair and equitable treatment. Gordon Brown, via his custody of the economy and private pension provision over the last 12 years, has massacred private provision to such an extent that it's now virtually non existant.

The average private pension pot will be circa £40,000 yielding a massive pension of around £2000pa at the age of 65.

Yes we'd all (20million of us) like nice FS pensions but who would pay for them? Employers ? I doubt it - add 30% onto the wage bill and I suggest that any remaining UK jobs would be quickly exported.

Many in the private sector are seriously underprovisioned but will still be expected to contribute a significant amount towards the now overly generous pensions to the well-above average earners like police, nurses, doctors, teachers, MPs etc.

I think that public sector entitlements should be frozen at current levels and future accruals calculated on a more affordable basis with contributions much more evenly shared between beneficiary and taxpayer.

carolt

I agree that the situation we have in this country re private sector pensions is seriously wrong and needs looking at. However, just getting rid of existing pensions isn't the answer - people need enough money to survive on in retirement, unless we want to see hordes of starving pensioners huddlded on street corners (or - as you still see in Russia, for example, where the collapse of Communism left many old people without the basic help from the state they'd been led to believe they would receive - with old people in their 70's and 80's out in all weathers, working as street cleaners and the like). I don't think we'd be very happy with that here.

Clearly, everyone needs a basic pension.

Whilst the case for the relatively few public sector 'fat cats' is less clear, for the vast majority, like davesnave and his 12 grand a year, they're hardly living the life of riley, just getting a fairly basic amount to survive on.

The future for everyone - including public sector workers - needs to be clarified.

On a positive note, this week's slightly unexpected news that the UK population is actually growing, not shrinking - and not merely on the basis of short-term immigration, but on the longer-term one of a higher birth rate, means we may not face quite the pensions timebomb we were expecting - which was based on the assumption that old people would form an ever-increasing burden on a shrinking workforce. In fact, the reverse may be true.

Decent pensions for all! Tha's what we should be aiming for, not just no pensions for everybody! As some on here appear to desire.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

Whilst the case for the relatively few public sector 'fat cats' is less clear, for the vast majority, like davesnave and his 12 grand a year, they're hardly living the life of riley, just getting a fairly basic amount to survive on.

Decent pensions for all! Tha's what we should be aiming for, not just no pensions for everybody! As some on here appear to desire.

Just to clarify - davesnave's entitlement would represent about 20 years accrual - ie half a normal working life. To get an equivalent pension I would need a fund of £200,000 ie 20 years saving at £10,000pa. Now that FS pensions are extinct in the private sector, I would suggest that level of pension would be unattainable by other than maybe 10% (??) of the population. I know of so many people in their 40s & 50s who have little or no pension savings - presumably, they're all going to have to work until they drop.....taking jobs from the younger generation.

Maybe £12000pa is not generous in your eyes but, in reality, many underpensioned people will not be able to aspire to this level of income. Let's just hope that the welfare state can continue to provide for them in increasing numbers.

Your dramatic references to starving pensioners huddled in street corners (FWIW even in Communist times things were not much better - just a bit more predictable) may well come to pass for many unless, as you say, the government quickly addresses the issues - and it will probably be the kind hearted ex-public servants who are manning the soup kitchens.

Decent pensions for all - I wholeheartedly endorse that. I suspect that more coercion/tax incentives are needed in private sector and less generous benefits in public sector to achieve an all round fairer distribution of wealth.

bendix

carolt wrote: »

I agree that the situation we have in this country re private sector pensions is seriously wrong and needs looking at. However, just getting rid of existing pensions isn't the answer - people need enough money to survive on in retirement, unless we want to see hordes of starving pensioners huddlded on street corners (or - as you still see in Russia, for example, where the collapse of Communism left many old people without the basic help from the state they'd been led to believe they would receive - with old people in their 70's and 80's out in all weathers, working as street cleaners and the like). I don't think we'd be very happy with that here.

Clearly, everyone needs a basic pension.

Whilst the case for the relatively few public sector 'fat cats' is less clear, for the vast majority, like davesnave and his 12 grand a year, they're hardly living the life of riley, just getting a fairly basic amount to survive on.

The future for everyone - including public sector workers - needs to be clarified.

On a positive note, this week's slightly unexpected news that the UK population is actually growing, not shrinking - and not merely on the basis of short-term immigration, but on the longer-term one of a higher birth rate, means we may not face quite the pensions timebomb we were expecting - which was based on the assumption that old people would form an ever-increasing burden on a shrinking workforce. In fact, the reverse may be true.

Decent pensions for all! Tha's what we should be aiming for, not just no pensions for everybody! As some on here appear to desire.

you just don't get it, do you carolt?

What people are !!!!ed off about is the unfair treatment of private sector employees who are expected to make their own provision for pensions, whilst at the same time paying extra taxes to subsidise public sector pensions.

It needs to be fair and equitable. What is stopping public sector employees having to do what we in the private sector do - make our own provision?

Of course, you wouldnt get it, would you? You stand to benefit from the status quo, being a teacher.

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Just to clarify - davesnave's entitlement would represent about 20 years accrual - ie half a normal working life. To get an equivalent pension I would need a fund of £200,000 ie 20 years saving at £10,000pa.

Must have missed a post, I've seen no posts from Davesnave (on this thread) saying that he was only a teacher for 20 years

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

you just don't get it, do you carolt?

What people are !!!!ed off about is the unfair treatment of private sector employees who are expected to make their own provision for pensions, whilst at the same time paying extra taxes to subsidise public sector pensions.

It needs to be fair and equitable. What is stopping public sector employees having to do what we in the private sector do - make our own provision?

Of course, you wouldnt get it, would you? You stand to benefit from the status quo, being a teacher.

Envy not a very nice trait especially coming from one who by his own admission is loaded :eek:

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Envy not a very nice trait especially coming from one who by his own admission is loaded :eek:

1) I'm not loaded, although I do earn a half decent salary

2) What I have, I have worked for and paid ridiculous amounts of tax in the bargain, so I don't feel any need to apologise for being a high earner

3) I'm not envious

4) I'm frustrated that public sector works live in this protected bubble which makes them think a pension is a right, when in the private sector it most certainly isn't.

5) I am delighted to be planning for my own retirement under my own volition. As a responsible man, I see that as my duty. I'm less delighted to be paying for the pensions of those in the public sector.

6) You seem to have a crush on me. Would you like to talk about it?