how are all these final salary pensions going to be funded?

JonnyBravo

treliac wrote: »

Mr Brown, if you ever come onto the dating market.... there'll be a [STRIKE]mad[/STRIKE] stampede of mad females beating a path to your door.

Think you got your sentence a bit mixed up so I fixed it for you.



As for the topic.....
How about private sector final salary schemes white horse?

C_Mababejive

I have a FSPS. I dont work in the public sector. I work for a major international FTSE 100 company. Why shouldnt i have my FSPS? It is funded by the members and the company,it is viable,isnt in debt. I've paid in for nearly 30 years so why should i have the rug pulled out from under me now? Cameron wants to try and ditch FSPS doesnt he? What business is it of his? surely he can only dabble in the public sector. Private companies are non of his business. Who is he to deny anyone their pensions when he is a very wealthy man?

CLAPTON

bodgerx wrote: »

Its a northern County Council.

The reduction in final salary pension benefits in the public sector are well documented. e.g. rule of 85.

Most employees have seen there contribution rate increase for no increased payout. I used to pay 6% whereas now I pay 6.75% - a lot have seen it increase by more. There is no flexibility in this rate either - it's either that or nothing.

That's a absolutely fantastic deal ... 25% benefit for 6.75% (well 5.4% after tax relief) ... and you can retire at 60 or even 55 maybe

work out your total contributions over your working live... work out the likely payout out in retirement and see the huge difference

StevieJ

bodgerx wrote: »

Basically, a pension scheme should be a balanced book - regardless of whether it is public sector or private.

Fine but I know of one private sector firm who had a pension holiday from 1990 to mid 2000's because the fund was overfunded and promised to make up any deficit as required.

StevieJ

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

How are all these final salary pensions going to be funded?

The simple answer is, they won't.

There are no simple answers mate.

Andy_L

bodgerx wrote: »

I don't consider 'final salary' pensions to be as lucrative to the pensioner ... as many of you have made out.

So an employers contribution of 3-5 times the employees contribution isn't lucrative?

StevieJ

Andy_L wrote: »

So an employers contribution of 3-5 times the employers contribution isn't lucrative?

What does that mean ?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I work in a university and started a final salary pension thing a year ago. Does this make me as bad as a benefit-scrounging chav then?

Andy_L

StevieJ wrote: »

What does that mean ?

Whoops, edited for typo

bodgerx

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

BTW the 6.75% before tax that you contribute goes NOWHERE NEAR funding your pension entitlement (the taxpayer is contributing another 20+%).

Where is your evidence for that? The council I work for does publish its accounts for the fund - that is statutory requirement.

Quote from the report:

"The [fund] is financed by contributions from both employees and employers together with income earned from investments."

No mention of direct injection of cash from central government or other taxes.

Investing employees' contributions and the employer's matching contributions make up the funds of the scheme - like any other employer pension scheme. If it doesn't balance then the councils need to dig their way out via increased contribution rates from the employees etc.

I can PM you with the name - I'd rather not reveal it here.

There is no 'gold-plating' here - if you are under the impression that working for local government is a way to get rich at the tax payer's expense I think you are misinformed.