Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

My guess is that there will be a partial raid on pension schemes to make up some of the shortfall in state pension savings by changing risk rules in order to force private pension schemes to buy more Government bonds and thus lock in perpetual lenders at below market rates.

What is there to stop pension funds moving domicile/residence overseas to avoid govt interference, after all they are moving a lot of the jobs.

mbga9pgf

I remember the 80s when Thatcher made a total mess of the NHS and saw the effects with my own eyes, I'm sure you wouldn't want your mother, father, loved one being cared for in a crumbling healthcare system? Don't kid yourselves out there, these cuts are going to make things worse for all of us 'regular Joes' out there, the rich wont be worrying...

Speak for yourself. Whats the point of keeping old has beens on the scene to effectively keep on with a declining quality of life? I personally would prefer better pensions provision with the opt in to be euthanised at the age of 85. Chance to say goodbye to your family, maintain a decent quality of life, then end it before I start losing my marbles and dribbling pea soup down my chin.

Not possible? Watch this space. Once the religious nutters are bypassed and the swiss clinic treatment becomes more widespread, I would hope that such an option wouldbecome possible if available.

Honest_Hood

The_White_Horse wrote: »

these public sector cretins should all have their pensions and pay slashed by 50%.

The White Horse - Would you care to enlighten us 'cretins' what line of business you are in?

Isn't it so easy to jump on the media bandwagon and slag off the public sector for carrying out work that goes unnoticed, is never praised and is subject to critiscm by people who have little or no knowledge of the work carried out and ultimately haven't got a clue about the real world.

I have no idea how anybody has ever 'thanked' you if this is the quality of your posts.

System

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Whats the point of keeping old has beens on the scene to effectively keep on with a declining quality of life? I personally would prefer better pensions provision with the opt in to be euthanised at the age of 85. Chance to say goodbye to your family, maintain a decent quality of life, then end it before I start losing my marbles and dribbling pea soup down my chin.

Not possible? Watch this space. Once the religious nutters are bypassed and the swiss clinic treatment becomes more widespread, I would hope that such an option wouldbecome possible if available.

What happens when you get to 85 and change your mind?

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Whats the point of keeping old has beens on the scene to effectively keep on with a declining quality of life? I personally would prefer better pensions provision with the opt in to be euthanised at the age of 85. Chance to say goodbye to your family, maintain a decent quality of life, then end it before I start losing my marbles and dribbling pea soup down my chin.

You left it bit late

ILW

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

My point is that these jobs knacker you up so it is hard to do that job at 65+ as is suggested.
may seem a tad altruistic but whatever happened to social justice? Surely the public would prefer a team of dedicated hard working people looking after them?

I realise there is no money so this thread is a no brainer anyway...

Why does being a middle management pen pusher in the NHS knacker you?

Andy_L

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Perks such as staff discounts, free parking, paid travel to work, christmas holidays etc all add up. None of which you get in the public sector.

Apart from the staff discount they are all avaliable in certain parts of the public sector

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How many private sector employees would work christmas day, for their usual wage?

Premium overtime for BHs is in both the Civil Service & NHS (unless your on a shift pattern, in which case you get shift enhancments instead)

Andy_L

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

I am a staff nurse and have worked my but! off since the day I started nursing 27 years ago. My colleagues work 12 1/2 hour shifts (if they get off duty on time) and we never stop. Pay scales are http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/default.aspx?id=766 which means a newly qualified staff nurse gets £21,176

You appear to have forgotton to mention how much overtime/shift premium/unsocial hours they get for 12.5hr shifts

Andy_L

Generali wrote: »

Your NHS pension scheme accrues assets so the size of the pot to pay out on promises increases along with the increase in the size of the promises.

The NHS scheme is unfunded, I suspect you're confusing it with the LGPS one which is funded

Mr_Mumble

A lot of misinformation in this thread (and yes that is mainly aimed at the usually awesome Generali).

The LGPS is the only major public sector pension scheme that is funded. All others are unfunded (Hutton page 123 Table 6.A for a simple overview of structure and governance).

It's implausible to build up a fund for the Teachers, NHS, Civil Service and Armed Forces since government pension schemes are cashflow negative (i.e. employee + employer contributions don't match outgoings for pensioners). This negative cashflow is made up via general government funds most of which comes under the line "net public service pensions" in budget tables. The OBR has a breakdown in this, slightly out-of-date, pdf. Given an increase in contributions and change from RPI to CPI the OBR now estimate a net cost of £7bn in 2014-15 (see page 6 and 40 of this doc) for centrally managed schemes (i.e. NHS, Teachers, Armed Forces and Civil Service but not Police, Firefighters, Scottish & NI executives that come from other budgets).

If the government wished to make their pension schemes transparent they'd cull the "net public sector pensions" figure and other grants. Instead, make each department (e.g. NHS, DfE, MoD) responsible for these additional costs. It would mean a 10-20% increase in employer contributions but it would show just how lucrative these pensions are and would help illustrate the trade-off between pension payouts and services.


edit-to-clarify: when I say "10-20% increase in employer contributions" in the final paragraph I mean a 10-20% increase as a percentage of overall salary. Not, a 10-20% increase in the employers contribution to pensions (which would be far less of a problem!)