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

Stargazer57

hayleythedaisy wrote: »

Futher to Badgerhead's comments... I am not so sure I fancy the average 59 year old rescuing me from a burning building, chasing a criminal down the street or fighting for this country.
How unrealistic.

No, one is saying they still have to be fighting fires at 59, or even working as a fireman. What we can't afford is to be paying firemen pensions for 35 years (from 55 to 90) when they have only worked for the same length of time (from 20 to 55).

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I am inquisitive to know what pension arrangements Hutton will be receiving and from where

hayleythedaisy

So what will they be doing at 59? And the firefighters pay a hell of a lot into their pensions as they do a job that used to be considered something they should retire earlier than retirement age from. Does this mean their pension contributions will go down?

Stargazer57

hayleythedaisy wrote: »

So what will they be doing at 59? And the firefighters pay a hell of a lot into their pensions as they do a job that used to be considered something they should retire earlier than retirement age from. Does this mean their pension contributions will go down?

I don't know many firemen, but there plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that many of them have a second job (minicabbing, decorating etc.) even while they are still in the service. That's why they get upset when the shift patterns change.
I do know plenty of police and forces people who go on to get jobs while drawing their pension. Presumably these jobs will still need doing even if public sector job pension ages rise.

Obviously any extra members contribution demanded from firemen could only be justified by their benefits being better. At present it is a steal (for the member) and I'm confident it will carry on being so.

NAR

Rummer wrote: »

Just to check does this apply across the UK as a whole?

Yes it does.

NAR

hayleythedaisy wrote: »

With public sector jobs paying less money, offering less security, and less pension benefits, how do they expect to get anything other than monkeys being attracted to doing them??

Advertise all the jobs in Poland, Lithuania etc

shorted

Stargazer57 wrote: »

I don't know many firemen, but there plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that many of them have a second job (minicabbing, decorating etc.) even while they are still in the service. That's why they get upset when the shift patterns change.
I do know plenty of police and forces people who go on to get jobs while drawing their pension. Presumably these jobs will still need doing even if public sector job pension ages rise.

Obviously any extra members contribution demanded from firemen could only be justified by their benefits being better. At present it is a steal (for the member) and I'm confident it will carry on being so.

Yup, it may not be quite as attractive,but to some of us the deal still looks pretty good

Stark76

As a serving police officer who walks the beat I fail to see how I can possibly be expected to be doing this when I am in my 60's.

It's also unrealistic for the govt to assume that the older officers will just be sent away into back office jobs because that isn't the case just now. Many of the officers nearing retirement are working on the street until their very last day!!!!!
We pay an awful lot in to our pension to be able to take it after 30 or 35 years service. Or is that what they want that we all kick the bucket before we even hit retirement age. The thought of a better life elsewhere seems more and more attractive.

Stargazer57

Stark76 wrote: »

As a serving police officer who walks the beat I fail to see how I can possibly be expected to be doing this when I am in my 60's.

You don't have to. One of the joys of an average salary scheme is that if you leave service for another job, the pension you get in respect of the years you put in in the average salary scheme is completely unaffected.

Stark76 wrote: »

We pay an awful lot in to our pension to be able to take it after 30 or 35 years service.

You think you pay a lot, but it is still only around a quarter of the total cost. Your employer (i.e. us) has to cover a cost about three times as large. And, because you pay a lot, that's even more!

hugheskevi

People are getting very hung-up on the increase in Normal Pension age.

Perhaps it's the name - if it was called something like 'Central Reference Point for Calculation of Benefits' it would be equally descriptive but probably not provoke such comment.

No-one has to work to Normal Pension age. Just because it is labelled as 60, 65 or whatever makes very little difference, especially as one of Hutton's recommendations is to make early retirement more flexible, ie, people can take the benefits at any time. And without knowing accrual rate the level of the NPA is totally meaningless.

So if people don't want to work to 65, then that is fine, just base all expectations around 60 and take the actuarially reduced pension instead and pretend you have an NPA of 60.

If you were in a defined contribution pension, that is exactly what you would do - save more to give a bigger pension pot to provide the same level of income at age 60 you would have got at age 65 without the extra saving.