How big should my pension pot be ?

ffacoffipawb

Perfect_Choice wrote: »

Saying that, I would have no issue in pubic sector employees having the right to retire at 55 if they can build up a good enough money purchase pension pot.

Oo-er missus!

bendix

marklv wrote: »

You are living in cloud cuckoo land! Offer a 5% pension contribution to public sector workers and before long you'll have no doctors, nurses, teachers or police. I've never read such utter claptrap in all my life. So what if most private sector employers offer 5% pension contributions? As I said before, why should public sector employees be offered the lowest common denominator?

And as we've said, there is no logical reason why public sector workers should get more employer contribution than private. You say there will be no doctors, teachers or police if they only get 5%. Why? Have we seen a mass exodus of accountants, shop workers and factory workers because their employers in the private sector get only 5%.

You consistently fail to justify why public sector workers should get a pension contribution which, according to PriceWaterHouse Coopers research, is close to being worth 37% of salary.

Tell us that.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

And as we've said, there is no logical reason why public sector workers should get more employer contribution than private. You say there will be no doctors, teachers or police if they only get 5%. Why? Have we seen a mass exodus of accountants, shop workers and factory workers because their employers in the private sector get only 5%.

You consistently fail to justify why public sector workers should get a pension contribution which, according to PriceWaterHouse Coopers research, is close to being worth 37% of salary.

Tell us that.

I have justified it numerous times, but you seem unable to understand what I say. The public sector has many essential workers, such as medics and police, as well as other key workers - can't you see the damage that would occur if you removed the salary linked pension? The private sector is different because profit making organisations can choose how much to pay staff and how much to pay in pension contributions. And many large private sector organisations still either offer salary based pensions or relatively generous money purchase ones (in excess of 10% of salary). To advocate giving public sector workers 5% pension contributions is a slap in the face to millions of people that keep this country going. If a few little companies go bust it's not the end of the world, but if hospitals, schools and police stations lose staff by the thousands then it would be a national catastrophe. This is why no sensible politician of any major political party would ever want to destroy public sector pensions.

I am all in favour of reforming public sector pensions, that is to make them less expensive for the state, but all this talk of level playing fields is utter nonsense because there isn't a level playing field even within the private sector. If there was, then John Lewis, Tesco, Shell and others would not still offer final salary pensions.

You statement that PWC calculates public sector pensions being worth 37% of salary is intriguing - I would like to know how they have come up with this figure and what schemes they have used for their study. Most analysts estimate the typical public sector scheme as being worth around 20% of salary.

Paul_Herring

The private sector is different because profit making organisations can choose how much to pay staff and how much to pay in pension contributions.

And they're so good at it, the government has to use the stick approach with the regulations coming in in 2012 to get them to do it.

To advocate giving public sector workers 5% pension contributions is a slap in the face to millions of people that keep this country going. <rhetoric elided> This is why no sensible politician of any major political party would ever want to destroy public sector pensions.

No - the reason no politician would do it, is because the unions would (legitimately) portray it as a pay cut since they get (comparatively) nowhere near as low as 5% currently.

Look at the politicians themselves for example.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

I have justified it numerous times, but you seem unable to understand what I say. The public sector has many essential workers, such as medics and police, as well as other key workers - can't you see the damage that would occur if you removed the salary linked pension? The private sector is different because profit making organisations can choose how much to pay staff and how much to pay in pension contributions. And many large private sector organisations still either offer salary based pensions or relatively generous money purchase ones (in excess of 10% of salary). To advocate giving public sector workers 5% pension contributions is a slap in the face to millions of people that keep this country going. If a few little companies go bust it's not the end of the world, but if hospitals, schools and police stations lose staff by the thousands then it would be a national catastrophe. .

This is all utter nonsense. You are basically saying that without public sector employees the nation would cease to operate; that seems to be your only argument.

So how about this mark? How about if every private sector employee stopped working too? No production in factories, no retail operations, no scientific reseach, no innovation, no banks opening, no wealth generated, no fuel produced or distributed.

Would that not be a national catastrophe too?

Your entire argument is fatuous, based as it is only on an innate sense of the importance of the public sector over the private sector.

It is completely illogical but - given you work in the public sector and stand to benefit from the status quo - entirely understandable.

marklv

Paul_Herring wrote: »

And they're so good at it, the government has to use the stick approach with the regulations coming in in 2012 to get them to do it.

No - the reason no politician would do it, is because the unions would (legitimately) portray it as a pay cut since they get (comparatively) nowhere near as low as 5% currently.

Look at the politicians themselves for example.

You are correct - reducing the pension to 5% would be a huge pay cut, and that is why it's totally unacceptable. Thank goodness that there are still unions in at least one area of the workforce, otherwise it would be back to Victorian working standards, with a 12 hour, 6 day week for everybody.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

This is all utter nonsense. You are basically saying that without public sector employees the nation would cease to operate; that seems to be your only argument.

So how about this mark? How about if every private sector employee stopped working too? No production in factories, no retail operations, no scientific reseach, no innovation, no banks opening, no wealth generated, no fuel produced or distributed.

Would that not be a national catastrophe too?

Your entire argument is fatuous, based as it is only on an innate sense of the importance of the public sector over the private sector.

It is completely illogical but - given you work in the public sector and stand to benefit from the status quo - entirely understandable.

No, you are illogical. The private sector is different, because if you work for a bad employer you can always choose to go elsewhere, and the free market determines what employers can get away with. Quality staff are hard to come by and need to rewarded accordingly. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys - especially in professional fields like: law, finance, IT, surveying, etc. With the public sector there is no real internal competition becasue the pay and conditions are largely similar throughout (with a few exceptions).
So there is never going to be a collapse in the private sector because the market creates competition between companies (the so-called 'war for talent', to use an American term). But beat up the public sector and you will soon see a huge decline in teachers, nurses and police, as people abandon these careers.

Harry_Powell

marklv wrote: »

You are correct - reducing the pension to 5% would be a huge pay cut, and that is why it's totally unacceptable. Thank goodness that there are still unions in at least one area of the workforce, otherwise it would be back to Victorian working standards, with a 12 hour, 6 day week for everybody.

Interesting how the unions are happy for the tax payers to subsidise public sector worker's pensions but are quick to limit their own pension liabilities with their own workers. Shame that there are no unions for these union workers....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle6824024.ece

"One of Britain’s biggest unions — which has campaigned fiercely against government cutbacks to public sector pensions — is to cut back its scheme for its own staff, The Times has learnt.
Unison, which represents 1.3 million local government and NHS workers, can no longer afford its final-salary scheme for employees and has set out initial proposals to cut costs....
[The scheme had in 2008] assets of about £268 million and a deficit of £58 million. But....the deficit [is] now at least £120 million, as the value of pension funds had plunged..."

Harry_Powell

marklv wrote: »

But beat up the public sector and you will soon see a huge decline in teachers, nurses and police, as people abandon these careers.

There has never been a bigger demand for places on PGCE courses due to the hordes of private sector workers (many of whom were made redundant) trying to become teachers. This was not due to the fabulous final salary pension scheme it was due to the perceived safety of public sector jobs.

I think you'll find that many of the jobs you have listed are vocations not occupations to many people and that they would do the job regardless of whether they had a gilt edged final salary pension or not. People value job security, job satisfaction and the opportunity to help people far higher than they value a pension, certainly this is the case at the start of their career, though I dare say that the ones who are at the end of the public sector career put more emphasis on their pension....

bendix

All this discussion is interesting marklv, but you better get used to the fact that your pensions are gonna be cut, and cut severely, whether you like it or not.

Normally, I wouldnt celebrate that, but if your completely one-sided (we deserve it cos we're special) argument is typical of all public sector employees, then I shall be raising a glass to the first political party that does it.

Time to learn how to save, like the rest of us.

Good luck.