Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

evosy1978

Reading the opposing arguements between private and public sector posters on this thread makes me sooo glad Im a self-employed construction worker.???:mad::mad::mad:

Mr_Mumble

Sorry for the bump but I just came across info to answer a previous query:

1jim wrote: »

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.

You have to dig deep for this kind of info. Table 2.14 of the OBR fiscal supplementary tables (source Excel spreadsheet):

]

The NHS Pension Scheme currently does get more paid into it (via a combination of employer and employee contributions) than is paid out. A far cry from the Teachers' Pension Scheme and Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme! This doesn't mean that it will not be a burden on the general taxpayer in the future. The gap between receipts and expenditure is rapidly diminishing. I've got sympathy for the RCN's point of view here but imho it is disingenuous to use wording such as "positive balance". There's a positive surplus but "balance" brings to mind balance sheets, there are no assets but plenty of liabilities with unfunded public sector pensions!

The government doesn't publicise these numbers, if they were trying to divide opinion wouldn't they do a better job? They'd be saying, oi, nurses, you're getting screwed over and represented as gold-plated pensioners by the Whitehall fat cats and tweed wearing teachers who're really grabbing the taxpayer money!

The civil servant (sic) numbers are outrageous frankly. £300m paid in by employees who receive £5.4bn in return this financial year.

1jim

It might be an idea for the government to use the surplus then and start investing it so that it can off set and reduction in reciepts later. If the NHS scheme is more money being paid in than out...rather than make me pay more/work longer/get less in the future, they should stop using my money to subsidise other schemes where those workers are generally better paid in terms of salaries,

1jim

Its the misrepresentation of the figures that annoy me...perhaps its because I work in the NHS that I hear more about our pension but I recall a lot of cuffuffle on the news earlier in the year about the nhs goldplated pensions...bankrupting the country...I dont recall a lot about the other pensions.
I wonder if these figures have taken into account the change in NHS pension provision, the new scheme only open to new staff members, the wholesale sell off of the nhs to private providers who may not be able to offer NHS pensions? or the increased contributions that were negotiated a few years ago

Andy_L

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

The NHS Pension Scheme currently does get more paid into it (via a combination of employer and employee contributions) than is paid out. A far cry from the Teachers' Pension Scheme and Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme!
....
The civil servant (sic) numbers are outrageous frankly. £300m paid in by employees who receive £5.4bn in return this financial year.

The difference between the 2 is mostly because:
1. the civil service has been reducing its numbers over the past ~20 years whilst the NHS has been enlarging. Thus they have differing ratios of active members paying in & pensioners taking out.
2. The civil service has a lower employees contribution (~3.5% vs ~6.5%) to make up for its lower salary than the NHS

1jim

civil servants being paid less than health care assistants/nurses/other healthcare professionals?

Andy_L

1jim wrote: »

civil servants being paid less than health care assistants/nurses/other healthcare professionals?

Yes, the NHS pays more than the CS (especially in London as their London Weighting is more generous) - Although its somewhat confusing as there isn't a "Civil Service" pay scale like the NHS - each department has its own pay deals

michelle1506

Thanks for a great post - yours was one of the few on here which was worth reading! :beer:

Well to all of you moaning minnies on this board, I am one of those 'evil' public sector workers! I have to work 40 years to get a full pension! If public sector working conditions are so brill then why did it not occur to any of you people to become one??

I applied for a job that was offered, along with terms and conditions which were favourable to me. Had they not have been then I would not have applied! On that basis I think it fair that the conditions are kept as they are for existing public sector workers. I would not applied or stayed for the 10 years that I have otherwise!

As usual it's the public sector worker who is being blamed for the ills that this country is in. Why not blame past and present governments? The last one certainly gave out too many handouts!

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush wrote: »

It's always amusing in threads like this to see the private sector demand that the public sector have benefits / salary / pension / terms & conditions reduced "because the rest of us don't get them".

If you all had half a brain you'd see that the sensible thing to do is to improve the conditions of those at the bottom (which can easily be done with a change in what public money is being spent on. eg not spending billions a year giving the Afghans democracy by bullet), not cut those marginally higher up. That's the decent thing to do, to try and make things better for your fellow human beings.

Though if you all had half a brain, there wouldn't be a single Tory MP in office, so it's clear that's just wishful thinking on my part.

patrick_bs15

Have enjoyed reading this thread...

Am a primary school teacher (11 years experience) and think it's fair enough that teachers (amongst others) will be expected to work longer and to contribute more towards pensions.

What I'm not so sure about is the proposal to link pensions to CPI rather than RPI as well... is that a necessary step too?

vivatifosi

patrick_bs15 wrote: »

What I'm not so sure about is the proposal to link pensions to CPI rather than RPI as well... is that a necessary step too?

The CPI/RPI comparison is definitely not just a public sector issue.

It's worth considering that this move will likely affect private pensions too. If the scheme docs don't explicitly say RPI, but say something along the lines of "pension increases will be in line with government measures of inflation", then guess what, your pension could very well switch too, even if it is private sector. AIUI this has already happened/is in the process of happening to many including BA.