Public sector pensions nearly over?

Andy_L

peterg1965 wrote: »

I agree, all people who contribute to the success of an enterprise are worthy of recognition. However, it isn't MOD civil servants who are facing Taliban bullets,

Except, of course, for those MoD civil servants who are deployed out in Afganistan

LizzieS_2

roysterer wrote: »

I would like to know when are Public Sector Pensions going to fall in line with the Private Sector. Private Sector Companies are pulling the plug daily on Final Salary Pension Schemes as well as making it almost impossible to retire early before 65. Companies can no longer finance these expensive schemes.


Maybe we should start witht he financing. In both types of schemes employees make contributions. In the public sector, employers contributions are indeed funded by taxpayers. In contrast the private sector employer contributions are funded by the profits of the company.

Are private sector final salary schemes unaffordable? Actually they are affordable just the companies chose to compete with each other on the maximum bottom line profits, have you ever noticed how profits to shareholders go up?

My question is :- If companies can't finance these schemes then how is the TAX PAYER supposed to finance Public Sector Final Salary Pensions. Why don't Public Sector Workers such as Police, Nurses, Local Government, etc have Defined Contribution Pensions and work to 65 like the vast majority of every one else.

You do not chose to pay taxes but you cannot chose to buy a product or service cheaper either - the difference is the private sector are too busy competing with each other to put their staff in a decent position.

Have the Public Sector workers had to double there contributions to get reduced benefits like the private sector? Its now time for them to fall in line with everyone else. Public spending has to be drastically cut due to the mess this country is in. So I think Public Sector Pensions should fall in line with Private Sector for all future benefits.
Do you think this is a fair and reasonable request?

Perhaps it would be fairer for Government to legislate a realistic minimum contribution rate by employers - private sector competitiors are then all in the same boat and cannot use pensions as a way of reducing the cost of a service or item.

marklv

The only solution is for the government to force all employers to contribute a set minimum amount, say 10% of salary, to an employee's pension.

peterg1965

Andy_L wrote: »

Except, of course, for those MoD civil servants who are deployed out in Afganistan

Very true, although they are generally not deployed on the 'front line'. I still applaud their efforts though and in no way meant to decry them by my general statements.

markr007

The only solution is for the government to force all employers to contribute a set minimum amount, say 10% of salary, to an employee's pension.

Why. Those that already do will continue to do so and those that don't will just fund it by reducing pay.

Given the choice of 10% more salary or 10% more to a pension I know which I would choose. Salary is more flexible, I could choose to put some or all of it to a pension if I wanted and if the employer offered salary sacrifice the NI position would be no different either.

If you are going to compel then why not just call it a tax and provide a decent state pension for everyone.

If of course, your argument is that people should save rather than that employers should contribute (which doesn't seem to be the case) then this is the argument used to introduce Personal Accounts from 2012 although the employer contribution is only 3% of band earnings. Although I agree with the concept of making people save I don't agree with the implementation of personal accounts at several levels.

:-)

marklv

markr007 wrote: »

Why. Those that already do will continue to do so and those that don't will just fund it by reducing pay.

Given the choice of 10% more salary or 10% more to a pension I know which I would choose. Salary is more flexible, I could choose to put some or all of it to a pension if I wanted and if the employer offered salary sacrifice the NI position would be no different either.

If you are going to compel then why not just call it a tax and provide a decent state pension for everyone.

If of course, your argument is that people should save rather than that employers should contribute (which doesn't seem to be the case) then this is the argument used to introduce Personal Accounts from 2012 although the employer contribution is only 3% of band earnings. Although I agree with the concept of making people save I don't agree with the implementation of personal accounts at several levels.

:-)

Better to have a level playing field - if all employers had to pay in at least 10% of pay it would stop the false advertising of job salaries. And it is precisely why most people would rather have extra salary that we need the forced contribution; to ensure that people save properly for their retirement.

markr007

Better to have a level playing field - if all employers had to pay in at least 10% of pay it would stop the false advertising of job salaries. And it is precisely why most people would rather have extra salary that we need the forced contribution; to ensure that people save properly for their retirement.

I see the line of argument and have some sympathy for it. To say salaries are advertised falsely though is perhaps pushing things. If the public cared about pensions enough then they'd take it into account. If they don't care then it's not the employer's fault. If gov't thinks people should save then it should legislate for it but if doing this, as I said before, I would rather call it a tax and provide a proper state pension for all.