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

Sir_Humphrey

chucky wrote: »

that's not good - no wonder Sir Humpy is on the defensive

Poor attempt at a wind-up. I am not on a council pension and the Civil Service final salary scheme is already closed to new members.

If the upcoming costs of final salary pensions were to have been addressed, they should have been by the Thatcher government. It is just too late now! The money will just have to be found.

Kohoutek

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The money will just have to be found.

At the expense of impoverishing everyone else? £53 billion is too much to expect rate payers to pay, just because these people were made a unrealistic promise thirty years ago.

abaxas

What about the 2015 annunity tax?
The 2017 final salary penion tax?

Wont these solve the problem?

Sir_Humphrey

The baby-boomers pensions accruals are baked into the cake. The cost is spread over many decades; the numbers are not a scary as they are made out to be.

If you look into the detail of the civil service scheme (instead of relying on the nonsense in the Daily Mail) then you would know that part of the cost will be born by higher pensions contributions from civil servants. I don't think that is unreasonable. Of course, if my take home pay goes down then this just means I would end up getting paid more through market forces.

I won't be retiring until the baby-boomer bulge are mainly deceased, so I am not causing anyone any problems!

The market applies to public sector renumeration just like any other.

As for impoverishing other people; well how many businesses profit from money spent by pensioners? I don't see why public servants should be penalised for preferring delayed financial gratification.

baby_boomer

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The pension is part of the complete pay package. Cut that, and wages will soon rise to compensate. It is called market forces.

Why have all the stress and aggro that goes with higher grades if the renumeration does not match? For example, I do not really see being a Senior Civil Servant as being financially worthwhile compared to the highest grade of Junior Civil Servant - the pay differential is not worth it unless you want to aim right for the top as there is more hassle, longer hours and less security at the lower SCS levels. I'd also be doing as useful a public service at the lower grade. I know people who have progressed rapidly through the junior ranks who have a similar opinion.

This would be even more the case if I had a career-average pension.

But wot about the status of the top jobs? You write as if it doesn't exist or wouldn't motivate people.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The pension is part of the complete pay package. Cut that, and wages will soon rise to compensate. It is called market forces.

As private sector pensions have collapsed, I haven't noticed these alleged "market forces" cutting civil servant pay to compensate. In fact quite the reverse!

A deflation of the overall pay/pension package of civil servants would only bring them back into line.

The_White_Horse

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It is just too late now! The money will just have to be found.

No it doesn't. You just say "sorry, there is no money, you will get 50% of what you thought you would get, or you get nothing".

I'm sure it can be done.

Sir_Humphrey

baby_boomer wrote: »

But wot about the status of the top jobs? You write as if it doesn't exist or wouldn't motivate people.
As private sector pensions have collapsed, I haven't noticed these alleged "market forces" cutting civil servant pay. In fact quite the reverse!

My pay has not kept up with inflation over the last few years - it has not kept up with private sector pay either. And do not forget that civil service pensions are now career average for new entrants, and have been for a few years now. The solution to wrecking private sector pensions is not wrecking public sector pensions.

The fact is that most civil servants at EO or above who are any cop could be earning more right now in the private sector than in the public sector, even with the recession. The reason we do not do so is because of the security.

Most civil service jobs are of the "dull but worthy" sort. Plenty of private Sector jobs are socially worthwhile too. The status of a top lawyer is higher than that of a senior civil servant. Most don't even get their own office and secretary now (they did five years ago). The public/private sector wage differential gets higher the further up the greasy pole you go.

baby_boomer

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The reason we do not do not [leave for the private sector] is because of the security..

Quite. QED :beer:

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

My pay has not kept up with inflation over the last few years

You don't seriously expect anyone on this board to believe that, do you? :rotfl:

Unless you've gone part time to put the civil servant case online?

StevieJ

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The baby-boomers pensions accruals are baked into the cake. The cost is spread over many decades; the numbers are not a scary as they are made out to be.

If you look into the detail of the civil service scheme (instead of relying on the nonsense in the Daily Mail) then you would know that part of the cost will be born by higher pensions contributions from civil servants. I don't think that is unreasonable. Of course, if my take home pay goes down then this just means I would end up getting paid more through market forces.

.

Don't let the barstewards grind you down.

StevieJ

baby_boomer wrote: »

Quite. QED :beer:

You don't seriously expect anyone on this board to believe that, do you? :rotfl:

Unless you've gone part time to put the civil servant case online?

What is your problem, the guy was offered a job and contract of service and he accepted, why didn't you do the same if you are jealous?