Public sector pension rant

JamesU

bilbo51 wrote: »

I believe that we all make the choices that we perceive are best for us at the time - we then just have to live with the consequences... or exercise choice again.

Agree with this in principle, existing employees can exercise a choice i.e. accept the employment terms on offer (including pension provision), or move on. The retired and previous employees with deferred pensions do not have that choice so your reasoning does not stand for these people. And that then precipitates the usual debates on what retrospective changes are acceptable or unacceptable.

JamesU

hugheskevi

You shouldn't believe that stat, it is much higher - more like 85.

Judging from the way people in their 40s, 50s and 60s are dropping around me like flies, I can scarcely believe it.

Based on statistics produced by the Government Actuary's Department here, cohort life expectancy (principle projection) shows that a 65 year old male can expect on average to live to 86.3, and a 65 year old female to 89.

In fact, based on these projections, all males and females alive today in normal health regardless of their age can expect to live to at least age 85 on average (although there has to be a bit of a geographic caveat here).

Expectations about averages cannot be based on local experience, as life expectancy is very volatile geographically. Someone born and living all their life in a deprived part of Glasgow has a much lower average life expectancy than someone from East Dorset.

The main arguments against these average numbers would be that trends such as growing obesity, lower exercise, etc, will in time reduce life expectancy. Additionally, you may believe that the current observed life expectancy is higher due to the impact of the 2nd world war and post-war rationing producing an abnormally hardy and healthy generation.

bilbo51

JamesU wrote: »

Agree with this in principle, existing employees can exercise a choice i.e. accept the employment terms on offer (including pension provision), or move on. The retired and previous employees with deferred pensions do not have that choice so your reasoning does not stand for these people. And that then precipitates the usual debates on what retrospective changes are acceptable or unacceptable.

JamesU

No - my reasoning (it isn't my reasoning actually but I can't remember where I first came across it) stands for everyone at every decision point in their lives - even the madman with the shotgun - what change are the available options...

jamesd

I suppose you know that retiring on half pay after paying in only 11% of pay is a dream for most in the private sector these days? A private sector deal to match that is likely to take at least 25% of pay. Grumbling is understandable, just don't get the idea that you're hard done by compared to the private sector.

moonrakerz

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Phew!

What a rant.

LM, could I make a small alteration ?

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Phew!

What an ill informed rant.

michelle1506

Hello,

I'm a public sector worker like you, don't earn brilliant wages, and was offered redundancy after 10 years, which was too rubbish for me to even think about accepting. I personally think that the WRONG people are paying the price for what is happening in the country today.

I have sympathy with you, but I doubt that you will get much of it on here :mad:

I

mikebeluga wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Public sector pensions payer here.
Whoa, don't shoot me, I didn't realise we would become the pariahs we have. scrounging off the state like we all do!
I just paid into the scheme for 27 years like they told me to (another 3 to go)
I mean I've only paid 11% of my wages for 27 years, which equates to today's equivalent of £96,000 paid in.
Imagine if the government had the foresight to invest all that money-oh, hang on, they did. That's the problem. Most public sector pensions started in the 1950s, so for at least 30 years what happened to all those payments?

So now I get to be the baddy while the government says "hey, you private sector guys are right, we can't afford it, we have to change public sector pensions, why are their pensions so good anyway, lets take their hard earned pensions of them, just like we did with you guys, you don't mind do you?"
Err, hang on, MP's are in the public sector pension scheme, and err, hang on, you wasted all our investments on a million of daft schemes.

Yes, I get a lump sum and half my wages for a few years before I die (no, I dont believe the stats that we are living to 77)
I will still have to work and pay taxes etc just like everyone else does!

You guys are currently allowing the government to cut my pension.
All I was going to do was pay bills with it anyway, and maybe buy a few much needed goodies after 30 years without any, you gotta laugh.
You should all be ashamed!

JamesU

bilbo51 wrote: »

No - my reasoning (it isn't my reasoning actually but I can't remember where I first came across it) stands for everyone at every decision point in their lives - even the madman with the shotgun - what change are the available options...

No, your reasoning (or whoever the reasoning belongs to) does not stand in this instance, because as already stated the retired and those with deferred pensions made a decision in the past based on an informed choice and they cannot change that decision retrospectively, unlike the Government which is doing so.

JamesU

bilbo51

JamesU wrote: »

No, your reasoning (or whoever the reasoning belongs to) does not stand in this instance, because as already stated the retired and those with deferred pensions made a decision in the past based on an informed choice and they cannot change that decision retrospectively, unlike the Government which is doing so.

JamesU

I can be a real pain you know. People always have a choice a to what to do next. For example, you now have a choice as to whether to respond to this post. It's my contention that you'll make the best choice for you.

Just like I just did.

dizzybuff

If hes being paying 11% in for his pension , he will be a copper . Coppers can not opt out of paying their pension. They can not opt out of paying into the Police Federation and they can also not strike ...

michelle1506

:wave: Hello dizzybuff, yes I thought the same thing.. We should know shouldn't we..

If hes being paying 11% in for his pension , he will be a copper

dizzybuff wrote: »

If hes being paying 11% in for his pension , he will be a copper . Coppers can not opt out of paying their pension. They can not opt out of paying into the Police Union and they can also not strike ...