MSE News: Public sector pension benefits should be cut – report

JamesU

Andy_L wrote: »

The pension contract (ie the scheme rules) don't actually say RPI indexation they say words to the effect off "a rate determined by the Secretary of State". A separate piece of legislation then specifies that rate. It was this secondary piece of legislation that was changed from RPI to CPI and thus allows back dated changes without a change to the scheme rules (which generally say changes to accrued rights require members consent).

Understand the manner in which the uprating to CPI occurred. Accrued rights according to Secretary of State's choice of index in the abscence of RPI hardwiring. The issue I was raising is how the CETVs could be changed to CPI so soon last year whereas the AVCs are indexed to CPI from April. The use of CPI index has not taken effect yet has it? The vote was taken on 17th Feb and has only just received approval in the House of Lords and presumably takes effect from April? So there seems to be a discrepancy on the timing of CETV changes unless I have overlooked something more obvious.

JamesU

skistones

ds9074 wrote: »

The people that will be worse off will be those that get lucky and get big promotions towards the end of their career.

Or just women who don't get promoted until after they have raised families and thus worked part-time. In the current scheme as it's based on final salaries, that delay doesn't impact on your pension, but career averaging will compound the impact of discrimination. In my Government Dept, few part-timers seem to get promoted (and some certainly deserve it), so if you haven't managed to climb the ladder before you start a family you've a long wait for that big promotion.

BlogKnob

They should be cut, THE main reason this country and this economy is currently so screwed is it's dependence on the public sector. If you have a job in the public sector that can readily be scrapped then you are essentially living on benefits. The government KEEPS you. Call it benefits, call it what you like. This applies to pensions already accrued or otherwise.
No I am not John Redwood but I am sick to death of being screwed for more tax over the Labour years in order to fund pen pushers that are employed to....SCREW ME FOR MORE TAX

RichandJ

BlogKnob wrote: »

They should be cut, THE main reason this country and this economy is currently so screwed is it's dependence on the public sector. If you have a job in the public sector that can readily be scrapped then you are essentially living on benefits. The government KEEPS you. Call it benefits, call it what you like. This applies to pensions already accrued or otherwise.
No I am not John Redwood but I am sick to death of being screwed for more tax over the Labour years in order to fund pen pushers that are employed to....SCREW ME FOR MORE TAX

Quite.

Anyone win the £117 million lottery last night ? Lot of money isn't it ? £117,000,000.00 in full.

This year's Public Sector Borrowing Requirement was £146 billion, that's £146,000,000,000.00.

So, if you did win the lotto and decided as a public spirited person to donate it all to the Treasury, little George wouldn't have to borrow any money for a whole 7 hours.

This is just borrowing (aka deferred tax, burden on future generations etc). What HMG is planning to spend next FY is approx £710 billion, an increase on this year. So your lotto win would pay for slightly less than 2 hours of Government spending.

Something to think about next time anyone feels like having a whinge about government 'cuts'.

Thicko2

Some interesting links in the NHS/GP world on first statement on the increased contribution rates expected.

From 7.5% to 13% and 8.5% to 15.5%. A product that has already been devalued by circa 15 to 20% for RPI to CPI, and another hit coming soon.

I reckon th government needs to gauge this carefully, loss of members will have a dramatic impact on pay as you go schemes. The annual net contribution back to the treasury of £2bn from the NHS scheme could disappear if high earners do not see it as a good deal.

Stargazer57

Thicko2 wrote: »

Some interesting links in the NHS/GP world on first statement on the increased contribution rates expected.

From 7.5% to 13% and 8.5% to 15.5%. A product that has already been devalued by circa 15 to 20% for RPI to CPI, and another hit coming soon.

I reckon th government needs to gauge this carefully, loss of members will have a dramatic impact on pay as you go schemes. The annual net contribution back to the treasury of £2bn from the NHS scheme could disappear if high earners do not see it as a good deal.

But it will still be a bargain. A few ill-advised individuals may opt out, but if the contributions from the others are nearly doubling you don't really think that revenue will fall do you?

Thicko2

i think for GPs it will be interesting. As private contractors GPs also pay their employers contributions of circa 14% as well. So on an average salary of 120k ish, i think he bennefit analysis is not so clear cut.

My general point remain is the NHS scheme on a pay as you go is in surplus, yet people are being asked to pay more for less. It leaves a foul taste in the mouth, particularly when high paid employees had their contributions raised 3 years ago by circa 40% to protect its long term viability and nothing has changed since then. Indeed the National Audit Office reported confirmed the beneficial impact of the 2008 changes on its long term sustainability.