Public Sector Pensions...

StevieJ

thescouselander wrote: »

I doubt you will find anyone doing that for only 16K PA. The basic pay is supplemented by heavily subsidised housing and living expenses and then you've got to add various allowances etc. The whole package has a value significantly more then 16K.

Yes OK

Andy_L

thescouselander wrote: »

I doubt you will find anyone doing that for only 16K PA. The basic pay is supplemented by heavily subsidised housing and living expenses and then you've got to add various allowances etc. The whole package has a value significantly more then 16K.

plus £16k is the rate for somebody under training rather than someone fully trained & deployable.

StevieJ

Andy_L wrote: »

plus £16k is the rate for somebody under training rather than someone fully trained & deployable.

So they stay in the training school

thescouselander

michaels wrote: »

You always have the option to take a private sector job instead if you think the remuneration (including pension) is better. The employer (govt) will be forced to pay more if they can't get the staff they need at the wage offered. I personally don't think in the current climate that filling any vacancies (even with a much lower pension entitlement) will be a problem given that there are already officially 2.5m unemployed...

Indeed, people will leave starting with the best, most qualified staff - I'm not convinced this is in the interest of the tax payer. Surely what is needed is a smaller and more capable public sector - you won't get that by paying peanuts.

kabayiri

thescouselander wrote: »

Indeed, people will leave starting with the best, most qualified staff - I'm not convinced this is in the interest of the tax payer. Surely what is needed is a smaller and more capable public sector - you won't get that by paying peanuts.

Perhaps we will see a tiered support model for a lot of back office functions, which we already see in the private sector.

Maybe a polite Indian contact centre guy/girl will be answering your queries on tax or pension entitlement in the future!

treliac

michaels wrote: »

You answer tyour own question:

• Money can't be raised from the poor because they don't have it.
• Money can't be raised from the rich because they can avoid paying (avoidance or emigration) and there aren't actually that many of them.

Which only leaves those in the middle.

Thanks michaels, only it was a statement... not a question.

tesuhoha

I work in the public sector. My wage is £14,000 a year. I have been paying into the pension fund for years and had another pension transferred into it. The latest illustration told me I would be getting £4,000 a year when I retire in a few years time. Yes I suppose I am greedy and this enormous sum needs to be cut back.

roddydogs

Surely most PS pensions are "Non Contributory"?

MGCP

What I find rather upsetting is the venom I've seen directed towards public sector workers online. I've seen posts filled with barely articulate rage (not necessarily on here) calling all public sector workers scum, parasites and leeches.

Considering the good work that many of them do, often for not great wages and against a backdrop of underfunding I don't think it is a very helpful or warranted attitude. It almost feels as if this open warfare between the private and public sectors is being deliberately provoked as a distraction.

Whilst there needs to be a rethink about what we can afford, I don't see public sector workers as an enemy and I'm not going to start beating on them for failures in the system. If I thought their conditions were as great as some on here seem to suggest I would have tried to get a job in public service myself, but I've always steered well clear of it (partly because I couldn't stand the thought of every Tom, !!!!!! or Harry raking through my employment terms and screaming about how they own me because they "pay my wages").

We're living in some unpleasant times, and like dogs in a cage that's gradually getting smaller our reaction seems to be to turn inwards and start tearing each other apart. Not a nice thing to witness.

Muhasib

Andy_L wrote: »

plus £16k is the rate for somebody under training rather than someone fully trained & deployable.

Odd that the contributor chose an old US army photo and not one of HM Forces, housing for those who are Soldiers under Training or in their first posting isn't exactly luxurious or private and still causes junior soldiers to believe that getting married early is the quick way to getting their own home. There is free dental treatment but food is mainly provided as Pay as You Dine so while subsidised is not 'heavily' as is stated.

For anyone who thinks the £16k is good you only have to think about the working hours on deployment as it isn't 9-5 5 days a week; with the Operational Allowance now doubled it provides a reward for this.