Unacceptable pensions divide?

Milarky

Paul_Herring wrote:

These 'new' rules would reduce my personal pension contributions, not increase them, and my emails to the 'people concerned' (the MP asking for comments) have, perhaps unsurprisingly, gone unanswered.

It seems everyone is thinking along the same lines:

http://money.guardian.co.uk/money.guardian.co.uk/pensionswhitepaper/story/0,,1945060,00.html

The government has said it does not intend companies to close existing schemes to set up personal accounts, but it will not be able to stop those who do want to reduce contributions from doing so.

Milarky

Not from the Mail, surprisingly, but the Indy:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2035211.ece

MPs 'want 66% pay rise' to put them on £100,000 a year

(Now you know why they can't respond to your emails on 'personal accounts', Paul - they are too busy making submissions to the SSRB it seems)

Reference Sunday Times article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2484037,00.html

ReportInvestor

The prat who guided the recent changes to the MPs pensions through the Commons, Sir John Butterfill, is the same Sir John who is putting the case for £100K on behalf of the Conservative 1922 Committee

Remember that he actually said, in the pensions' debate, that he wouldn't be infavour of his own improved accrual rate if it was going to cost the Treasury money :eek:.

The cost to the taxpayer in pension terms of such a pay increase would be truly astronomical and the press must work out the figure ASAP.

As I've said previously, by all means give MPs a decent pay rise so we can see what they are costing us, but move them onto a defined contribution pension scheme at the same time, so that they can learn at first hand about pension issues their consituents' face.

But it looks like they want to have their cake and eat it .

Hereward

ReportInvestor wrote:

The prat who guided the recent changes to the MPs pensions through the Commons, Sir John Butterfill, is the same Sir John who is putting the case for £100K on behalf of the Conservative 1922 Committee

Remember that he actually said, in the pensions' debate, that he wouldn't be infavour of his own improved accrual rate if it was going to cost the Treasury money :eek:.

The cost to the taxpayer in pension terms of such a pay increase would be truly astronomical and the press must work out the figure ASAP.

As I've said previously, by all means give MPs a decent pay rise so we can see what they are costing us, but move them onto a defined contribution pension scheme at the same time, so that they can learn at first hand about pension issues their consituents' face.

But it looks like they want to have their cake and eat it .

Interesting, public servants (MPs) are blasted for their pension and wages, but the directors for FTSE 100 companies have been ignored on this debate. If we lobbied these directors to have a cut in pay to the same as MPs currently get, then the goods and services we buy could be cheaper as consumers do not need to fund their pay and associated pension costs. IIRC, these directors mostly have defined benefit (final salary) pensions too.

Plasticman

It seems to me that the current arrangements for public sector pensions just aren't viable in the long term. But there has to be some protection for those already in these schemes - particularly those near to retirement. So, closure of these final salary schemes for new members and higher contributions for those who have already joined?

One point that doesn't seem to have been considered yet (unless I've missed it!) is the potential cost of people choosing not to join their public sector pension scheme. If these scheme appears to be too costly and people choose not to join, will we just end up supporting them through benefits at retirement age?

ReportInvestor

Please don't get onto the FTSE100 directors' pay/pensions debate or we will lose track.

But do start another thread as it's an important issue. However:

A) It's a separate issue within the private sector. I do think MPs are relevant as they are going to vote on pension legislation coming up and ministers' pensions are a useful tool blind them to reality and make them reluctant to tackle the public sector pension issue in general because they will seem hypocrites.
It's inappropriate to compare our lobby fodder MPs with decision making directors
C) There is likely to be gradual change at the top of the private sector anyway as the pension issue gets bigger and people understand the discrepancies.
D) FTSE directors' pensions don't come out of taxpayers' money.

FWIW I would prefer directors to be on defined contribution pensions as it increases pay transparency for shareholders and employees.

Hereward

ReportInvestor wrote:

Please don't get onto the FTSE100 directors' pay/pensions debate or we will lose track.

But do start another thread as it's an important issue. However:

A) It's a separate issue within the private sector. I do think MPs are relevant as they are going to vote on pension legislation coming up and ministers' pensions are a useful tool blind them to reality and make them reluctant to tackle the public sector pension issue in general because they will seem hypocrites.

Unless MPs are paid the average wage for voters in their constituencies, then I do not believe that they will fully comprehend the difficulties that their constituents face.

It's inappropriate to compare our lobby fodder MPs with decision making directors

Most directors that I have worked for do not make decisions, they rely on the others in the organisations to make the decisions, and provide supporting evidence, for them and will present them as their own: quite like the “lobby fodder” MPs.

C) There is likely to be gradual change at the top of the private sector anyway as the pension issue gets bigger and people understand the discrepancies.

Why will this change occur? If organisations want to recruit the best people for the job they will have to offer them a remuneration package that targets these people and this package will have to reflect what the current position holder receives.

D) FTSE directors' pensions don't come out of taxpayers' money.

FWIW I would prefer directors to be on defined contribution pensions as it increases pay transparency for shareholders and employees.

Yes they do, it’s just that it is the money left after tax has been paid, which IIRC is a larger proportion of people’s gross wages than tax. I agree with you about directors should be in the same scheme as their employees.

ReportInvestor

I wouldn't propose that our lawmakers should receive an average wage. I would like people with some skill and experience in the Commons - rather than professional politicians.

But I'd like them to understand how pensions work (not for them to have an average pension) - which many of them haven't grasped.

Looking forward to your new thread on directors' pensions where we could also discuss to what extent, if at all, taxpayers should fund pensions.

exil

Whilst agreeing this is a genuine issue, it does seem strange that people have it in for public sector workers, many of whom are low paid, whilst ignoring the people at the top of the private sector tree, who earn telephone number salaries and make Tony Blair look poverty-stricken. OK - we all pay for the pension of the teacher or refuse collector. But then we also pay for the pension of the £5million a year chief executive, as shareholders, investors or customers.

Public sector pensions WILL change (for the worse, either by reduced pensions or increased contributions). The unions will complain and fight a rearguard action but the political pressure will be too great for government to ignore.