Public Sector Pensions

harryhound

Don't forget "the rule of 72": You divide the rate of inflation into 72 and that gives you the number of years it takes to halve the debt in real terms..

vivatifosi

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't think the increasing age profile of the population is a gimme going forward, it could be that due to the sedentary lifestyle now adopted eg more office jobs compared to manual, computers etc the middle aged of todays could start to die younger.

It's going to be interesting to see how that one plays out. For sure, mortality assumptions are getting longer, but it is hard to believe that people who eat !!!! and sit down all day are going to routinely live to 100. I suppose it depends on whether there'll be a real medical breakthrough - like a cure for all cancer or something like that. We aren't having enough kids though and that's an issue.

marklv

mrs_T wrote: »

As a local govt worker I have been paying in to my pension for the past 25 years (probably another 20 to go) and I'm paying in an extra 170 pounds a month of my salary before tax in order to buy extra years to compensate for the years I worked part time when my kids were younger. I'm in a dead end job for an employer who not only isn't paying pay rises but is stopping increments for those not at the top of their scale (which they believed they'd get when they joined) and I'm in the second year of three year pay protection facing a 3k pay cut. Talk about breaking contracts and changing the rules as they go along!

Absolutely outrageous! :eek: And then you get all these pompous, opinionated people coming here, giving lectures about how well paid public sector employees are!! :mad:

Please name and shame the employer. No doubt this is a Tory council, trying to keep council tax as low as possible in order to bribe voters.

Old_Slaphead

mrs_T wrote: »

As a local govt worker I have been paying in to my pension for the past 25 years (probably another 20 to go) and I'm paying in an extra 170 pounds a month of my salary before tax in order to buy extra years to compensate for the years I worked part time when my kids were younger. I'm in a dead end job for an employer who not only isn't paying pay rises but is stopping increments for those not at the top of their scale (which they believed they'd get when they joined) and I'm in the second year of three year pay protection facing a 3k pay cut. Talk about breaking contracts and changing the rules as they go along!

I presume that this was part of the job evaluation process - what percentage of staff were given wage uplifts as opposed to downgrades? These changes were initiated and agreed by your trade union!

In my LG area - far more had wage increases than falls (ratio over 2:1) but approximately half stayed the same - this after 6 years of consultations. These job reevaluations were done following pressure from Unions re. equal pay. (nb my authority at the time of wage changes was Labour). There was an additional cost to council taxpayers (including up to 6 years of backpay for those who gained - but note : those with pay reductions still had 3 years pay protection) - of £16million. Presumably that was accomodated by a reduction in services.

I didn't see much publicity for all those who got unexpected pay rises and accrued pensions - only for protestations by the minority who's pay went down. People are quite happy to take a 'windfall' uplift in T&Cs (ie salary level) but are intransigent when things go the other way.

Spartacus_Mills

mrs_T wrote: »

As a local govt worker I have been paying in to my pension for the past 25 years (probably another 20 to go) and I'm paying in an extra 170 pounds a month of my salary before tax in order to buy extra years to compensate for the years I worked part time when my kids were younger. I'm in a dead end job for an employer who not only isn't paying pay rises but is stopping increments for those not at the top of their scale (which they believed they'd get when they joined) and I'm in the second year of three year pay protection facing a 3k pay cut. Talk about breaking contracts and changing the rules as they go along!

Pay rises are not an entitlement.

Increments should be done away with as they have been in the private sector largely.

I presume the pay cut is part of the evaluation that followed the sex discrimination ruling ?

harryhound

marklv wrote: »

A

Please name and shame the employer. No doubt this is a Tory council, trying to keep council tax as low as possible in order to bribe voters.

How do you bribe someone with their own money ?

Now some people would say printing money and giving it away to suitable voters, thus reducing the value of existing money is fraud, bribery and theft.

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's going to be interesting to see how that one plays out. For sure, mortality assumptions are getting longer, but it is hard to believe that people who eat !!!! and sit down all day are going to routinely live to 100. I suppose it depends on whether there'll be a real medical breakthrough - like a cure for all cancer or something like that. We aren't having enough kids though and that's an issue.

I thought the age profile problem was related to the Baby Boomer generation and corrected itself after that.

DiggerUK

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Would you suggest that those of us making our own private provision without any taxpayer help be expected to pay too?

We all get tax relief on contributions, including you.

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Pay rises are not an entitlement.

Increments should be done away with as they have been in the private sector largely.

I presume the pay cut is part of the evaluation that followed the sex discrimination ruling ?

"Pay rises are not an entitlement" - well that says it all, doesn't it? Basically what you want is a slave labour society. Thanks for letting us know.

Old_Slaphead

DiggerUK wrote: »

We all get tax relief on contributions, including you.

Read posting #14 and #34.

The comment referred to an "extra" tax payment.

People get tax relief when payments go into and come out of pensions. Overall there's no taxpayer subsidy on private pensions - unlike public ones.