Public Sector workers laughing all the way to the bank

donaldtramp

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

But if his company is risking paying out such a large and costly pension then the risk is it will over burden itself and go bust. The result of this is mass redundancies as the company fails leaving an unfair burden on the tax payer through benefits.

I agree that very few in the private sector have a gold plated pension but for someone to protest against such pensions whilst enjoying their own is a little hypocritical.

I'm not sure who the customers are for the company they work for but essentially they are funding his pension in the same way the taxpayer funds the pensions in the public sector. Obviously the difference being the taxpayer paying for the pensions in the public sector is compulsary and they can't vote with their feet and go elsewhere.

There is a key difference that you haven't quite grasped.
Yup there is a risk in the private sector, but there is NO risk and NO accountability for public sector pensions. They are simply deferred hoping and praying that future generations will be able to pick up the tab.
That is the very reason so many of the private sector employers have pulled final salary pensions.
The government hasn't because it is too scared and just passes the buck onto future generations.
As for

the taxpayer paying for the pensions in the public sector is compulsary

We'll see about that. I think the public sector have a shock coming their way. I don't think it's going to be "compulsory" for much longer.

donaldtramp

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

So what makes it right and fine for you to have a gold plated pension but not Police Officers?

I on the other hand, DO NOT have a gold plated pension along with the vast majority of private sector workers and I strongly object to topping up other peoples so that they get benefits over and above everyone else.
Big difference.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

donaldtramp wrote: »

We'll see about that. I think the public sector have a shock coming their way. I don't think it's going to be "compulsory" for much longer.

I agree, so many in the public sector seem to think they are untouchable. I'm not looking forward to the economic consequences that the inevitable mass redundancy and pension overhaul is going to bring but it needs to happen, and is going to hapen.

mrstinchcombe

donaldtramp wrote: »

We'll see about that. I think the public sector have a shock coming their way. I don't think it's going to be "compulsory" for much longer.

Don't get me wrong I don't completely disagree. Maybe they will axe these schemes in the next few years for new recruits and new joiners but they won't do this retrospectively and ruin the pensions of people that already have them.

But even closing the schemes to new recruits would help fill a big hole. Although this would be slightly offset by the need of half decent wage increases in the public sector to address the loss of this perk.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Maybe they will axe these schemes in the next few years for new recruits and new joiners but they won't do this retrospectively and ruin the pensions of people that already have them.

But even closing the schemes to new recruits would help fill a big hole. Although this would be slightly offset by the need of half decent wage increases in the public sector to address the loss of this perk.

They won't retrospectively remove pension accruals, but they will prevent future accruals and move all existing members into the new scheme. this has been commonplace in the private sector.