The Truth About The State Pension

bendix

marklv wrote: »

What has Unison got to do with it? Unison is funded by its members - it is not a public sector organisation!

And yes we can afford public sector pensions; it just takes careful planning and allocation of resources. Other countries can do it, so can we. The retirement age in most of the public sector has already moved to 65, and this has been effective in reducing the financial burden of the various schemes; the next step will be to replace full indexation with limited indexation (max 5% increase a year). These cost cutting measures are all that is needed to keep the public sector schemes in control.

LOL. You're getting shriller and shriller in your defence of the indefensible. Deep down I think you know they will soon be history.

Old_Slaphead

marklv wrote: »

And yes we can afford public sector pensions;

Of course the taxpayer can afford public sector pensions - the question is is it reasonable and fair to allocate a disproportionate percentage of public funding (which is supposed to be spent on the general welfare of all society especially on those most in need) to a priviledged sector who, as a group, already benefit from above average income levels?

marklv

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Of course the taxpayer can afford public sector pensions - the question is is it reasonable and fair to allocate a disproportionate percentage of public funding (which is supposed to be spent on the general welfare of all society especially on those most in need) to a priviledged sector who, as a group, already benefit from above average income levels?

Total and absloute nonsense. The sector is not 'privileged' and does not enjoy above average income levels. Maybe more holidays, but that's about it.

Paul_Herring

marklv wrote: »

The sector is not 'privileged' and does not enjoy above average income levels. Maybe more holidays, but that's about it.

Um, from a previously linked article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pensions/article6831064.ece the public sector is indeed privileged, and (it would appear) not restricted to the likes of MPs and Judges:

The old argument that public sector workers deserve better pensions for putting up with lower wages throughout their careers simply does not hold true any more. Average earnings in the public sector are £523 a week, compared with £460 in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics. Public sector workers also benefit from a level of job security that is almost impossible to find in the business world.

I've been a Civil Servant for 25 years. I'm in the Admin grade, which makes up the vast majortiy of the Civil Service, and earn less than £20K. After a further 15 years service (40 years maximum) I can expect to receive, at todays rate, a pension of less than £10k - definitely not the king's ransom that this story wishes to portray.

Your equivalent salary in the private sector would pay a lot more into their pension scheme but receive less than half of your 10k pension.
A 10k pension will seem like a kings ransom to someone only getting half that!

molerat

I have a relative who is on £22k for a council. They admit that in the private sector they would be lucky to get £18k for the same job with far worse hours / holidays / general conditions and especially the pension.

(putting my cards on the table, I am in receipt of a gold plated diamond encrusted public sector pension for 20 years service which has been no where near rivalled by my 15 years private sector DB one in both terms of contributions and payments)

marklv

The reason average wages are higher in the public sector is because of the high number of professionals (doctors, teachers, etc) who work in that sector and in most cases only in that sector. So you are comparing apples with oranges. A better comparison would be between people doing jobs that apply to both the private and public sectors. Furthermore, the only reason why public sector pensions look attractive is because most companies in the private sector have allowed their benefits to fall away into oblivion. Go back to 30 years ago and the picture would have been greatly different. Trying to drag the public sector into offering rubbish pensions and benefits is a hugely retrograde step and more a symptom of very sour grapes from private sector employees than anything else.

Paul_Herring

The reason average wages aren higher in the public sector is because of the high number of professionals (doctors, teachers, etc) who work in that sector and in most cases only in that sector. So you are comparing apples with oranges. A better comparison would be between people doing jobs that apply to both the private and public sectors.

(Emphasis mine) You mean professions like Doctors and Teachers? I see only apples, and very few oranges.

marklv

Paul_Herring wrote: »

(Emphasis mine) You mean professions like Doctors and Teachers? I see only apples, and very few oranges.

You are being stupid now - only a minority of these professions are in the private sector. And when they do work in the private sector they certainly earn more than in the public one. Just look at Harley Street as an example.

Harry_Powell

As has been stated elsewhere on the pensions forum...

"Why on earth is anyone continuing to debate with marklv?" He's totally ill-informed, is childlike in his arguments and so completely without debating skills and knowledge that any victory you score against him rings hollow.

I'd advise anyone to do as I do when I see his posts:
1. Don a wry smile.
2. Shake your head.
3. 'Tut' a couple of times.
4. Have a little chuckle.
5. Scroll onto the next post.

I'd get more sense, challenge and enjoyment debating pensions with my 7 year old niece. :rolleyes:

marklv

Harry_Powell wrote: »

As has been stated elsewhere on the pensions forum...

"Why on earth is anyone continuing to debate with marklv?" He's totally ill-informed, is childlike in his arguments and so completely without debating skills and knowledge that any victory you score against him rings hollow.

I'd advise anyone to do as I do when I see his posts:
1. Don a wry smile.
2. Shake your head.
3. 'Tut' a couple of times.
4. Have a little chuckle.
5. Scroll onto the next post.

I'd get more sense, challenge and enjoyment debating pensions with my 7 year old niece. :rolleyes:

The last defence of the loser: try to ridicule your opponent when you have no answers. And what is about 'victories' scored against me? You couldn't score a victory in a game of naughts and crosses against someone who had just consumed a bottle of whisky and taken LSD.