Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

mbga9pgf

Desperate_Housewife wrote: »

your choice (even though its illegal) although I'd bet there are many out there who would love to step in and do it for you before you hit 85...

Only in this country. Dont worry, I have met a few pretty heartless nurses in my time too. Forget quite easily that their customers are human too.

Andy_L

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Alright here's the skinny on the public sector pensions. Working in the public sector you dont get bonuses, any sort of incentivised perk, or a lot of career development. What you are meant to get is job security and a decent pension.

Except that you can get bonuses in some parts (although, to be fair, some of them are a pay/pensions cost saving fiddle rather than a "proper bonus"). I'm not sure what you mean by an "incentivised perk" and I've always found career development there if you want it

Equally in some parts of the private sector you don't get any of them either

Generali

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

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 The OBR has a breakdown in this, slightly out-of-date, pdf.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!)

In my defence, I looked up the NHS pension scheme and it implied it was funded. Thank you for the compliment BTW, very kind.

I think that all pensions should be accrued and funded as the liability accrues. The same should be the case for the private and public sectors. If the argument is that public sector employees earn less but get a better pension in compensation (in effect some of their income is deferred) then that's fine but let the people that benefit from the services those public sector employees provide pay the whole of the cost of the service, not only the part they can't put off to the next generation to pay.

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Then did you read an article about two years ago now. Again in Mathematics. In China, they work on an Entrance examination to get into university. Someone grabbed one of these papers and circulated it to a handful of British University Mathematics lecturers and professors.

Yes I did. The questions were nowhere near as difficult as the reporting made out. The main example was a reasonably simple set of trigonometric questions that appeared daunting because the paper used an confusing (and unnecessary) shape. I could comfortably answer all parts without resorting to paper, and I'm confident I would struggle on a pure mathematics course at a reputable UK university (knowing a number of people who did study it).

The only way you'd think the paper was difficult was if you didn't actually see it, or your mathematically abilities fell noticeably short of most A level mathematics students.

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

A lot of people on here take umbrage at that because they are in the private sector, but then again 73% of the posters on here's contribution to the private sector involves repeating the words "do you want fries with that?" over and over again.

I'd mock you for creating a straw man (a classic sign of a weak argument); however seeing how awful the rest of your argument is, attacking the least bad bit of your post seems harsh.

Far too many people on here are happy to attack public sector workers without having any idea what they do. It's nice to see you providing an equivalent opposite perspective.

Mr_Mumble

vivatifosi wrote: »

Crikey. So the cost of unfunded civil service pensions is forecast to rise to more than 1/4 of the cost of all tax credits and cost more than is taken in from all vehicle excise receipts. That's without the police, fire service or LGPA pensions factored in. Have I got that right?

Yes, but note it's:

1. Not as much as our net payments to the EU.
2. Dwarfed by the extra £32bn a year to be spent on debt interest costs by 2015-16.
3. Less than our foreign aid payments.

The two key aspects of these costs is that they've grown very rapidly and most taxpayers don't notice any benefit from them. Imho Labour had a problem with stealth taxation while the coalition have a problem with stealth spending!

N1AK

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Yes, but note it's:

1. Not as much as our net payments to the EU.
2. Dwarfed by the extra £32bn a year to be spent on debt interest costs by 2015-16.
3. Less than our foreign aid payments.

The two key aspects of these costs is that they've grown very rapidly and most taxpayers don't notice any benefit from them. Imho Labour had a problem with stealth taxation while the coalition have a problem with stealth spending!

At the end of March 2010 we had a national debt of £1,000,000,000,000 (1 Trillion). The interest on the debt is the alternative to having to cough up £17,000 each to pay it off. I think most people do notice the difference.

As to the EU and foriegn aid payments. There are flaws to both, although I think a very large proportion of people benefit from both.

The issue with public sector pensions is that they should never have been agreed, on those terms, in the first place. However, I strongly dislike the idea of retrospectively changing it. What makes it all the more unforgivable, is that the people who could vote when the pensions were agreed won't be left to carry the debt. They'll be retiring at the same time as the public sector workers, and expecting those still working to make up for their own pension shortfall as well!

vivatifosi

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

The two key aspects of these costs is that they've grown very rapidly and most taxpayers don't notice any benefit from them. Imho Labour had a problem with stealth taxation while the coalition have a problem with stealth spending!

This is the issue that I have the greatest problem with. I'm struggling looking through the lens of my own scheme to understand how it has got so out of control -as in the cost practically doubling - though it does look like they haven't taken the opportunity to deal with issues that private schemes dealt with years ago (such as standardising the retirement age) and put people into early retirement on generous terms rather than making them redundant a bit too readily.

Having said that, driving growth from markets that just aren't growing when inflation is so high is an absolute b1tch too when you're trying not to end up in deficit territory so I do understand some of the problems.

lostinrates

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...

I appreciate you work hard and feel tired, but this is not liited to the public sector. DH worked a 35 hour week in his last week off and was please to get away lightly. some private sector work is tremendously demanding and yet you'll find people working in tough jobs increasingly: in all sectors.

Everyone, public, private sector: wants to be delaying with dedicated and hard working people, whether for care or for services..this too is not the preserve of the public sector.

1jim

Just had an email from RCN. This is part of the text

These proposals, alongside the two-year pay freeze and widespread cuts to jobs and services, are another hammer blow to the morale of dedicated nurses. We believe that the current NHS pension scheme, having undergone recent reorganisation, is fit for purpose. There will be no additional burden to taxpayers, and the NHS pension scheme is currently in positive balance.

If this line is true
There will be no additional burden to taxpayers, and the NHS pension scheme is currently in positive balance I struggle to see the justification for changing the pensopn scheme again. I accept that the RCN are not going to be independent but then neither is the government, I also struggle to see what the RCN has to gain by making statments like this....they have to be the least millitant union in history!

What I can see is that the government are doing a great job in dividing opinion and by using phrases such as Gold Plated diminish resistance to this change. A very cunning move but one that should not be unexpected from the present government.