Public Sector Pensions - Are they really so bad?

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

A question, what do you think the implications would be (for public finances) if we switched all current employees onto DC instead of DB as Cameron keeps spouting?

Would that not indicate that under DC current levels are unsustainable, would that possibly not mean under DB they possibly are also?

But did you know if that £5K is on current drawn rather that under current liability? (I really do not know)

Andy_L

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Excluding teachers, and maybe some of the civil service, the majority of the public sector are on call 24/7, which includes christmas etc, for no extra pay.

Complete and utter toss.

The only people who are on call 24/7 with no extra payment are the armed forces and, possibly, the police.

teachers aren't, Local gov aren't, NHS staff aren't

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

OK Bin man in public sector say £20K PA

Lets say for example in the private sector it is the same £20K

The public sector one works for 40 year and the pension is worth an additional 15%

£20K+15% = £23K X 40 = £920K 100% funded by tax payer.

So for it to work out the same cost to the tax payer the benefits after retirement (most probably 5 years later for the private employee) will have to equal nearly £1M more in today's terms to have the same tax payer cost.

Even if you use just the £3K (pension contribution) that is £120K,
That would equal an extra £6K per year state top up or £500pm or £125 per week. (popping clogs @ 85)

It does not add up as the same, sorry.

How much would a basic state pensioner claim in rent/council tax a week that he/she wouldn't be entitled to if receiving a pension. BTW I thought all the bin men had been kicked into the private sector.

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

A question, what do you think the implications would be (for public finances) if we switched all current employees onto DC instead of DB as Cameron keeps spouting?

Would cost more in the short term (because government would actually have to make contributions rather than leave schemes unfunded) but a lot less in the long run (because DB liabilities were not being accrued)

grizzly1911

Really2 wrote: »

Well if you use this graph it clearly shows up until recently it has outperformed private sector employment growth up until 2006.
It could hint that people preffered the public sector?

Any chance of the same figures for say 1970 - 2000.

We don't know what element of putting things back in place after previous(any) Government unrealistic cuts is being masked by the time frame.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Would that not indicate that under DC current levels are unsustainable, would that possibly not mean under DB they possibly are also?

But did you know if that £5K is on current drawn rather that under current liability? (I really do not know)

Presumably an estimate of all employees future entitlement on retirement. Of course it would be unsustainable we would all be paying twice (in the short to medium term), i.e. paying for the current pensioners and then building up a pot for the current employees.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

Well if you use this graph it clearly shows up until recently it has outperformed private sector employment growth up until 2006.
It could hint that people preffered the public sector?

Private sector growth outstripping public sector from 2006 - 2008!!!

What the hell were Brown and Blair thinking!

Turncoats.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

How much would a basic state pensioner claim in rent/council tax a week that he/she wouldn't be entitled to if receiving a pension. BTW I thought all the bin men had been kicked into the private sector.

I am not bashing, but it is very hypothetical response as we have no way of knowing what percentage of private employees this affects. What assets they had at retirement.
Just like people do not blanket the public sector you can't then make out it costs more to maintain private sector employee's in their retirement than it does a public sector one through their working life.

But is the argument we should suppliment pensions of the private sector so they are not a burden in the future.
If they earn more in the private sector is it less likely they would have to rent?

It was just an example to respond to the private sector earned more, if that was the case bin men should be on more money if it was take over by a private company.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

Private sector growth outstripping public sector from 2006 - 2008!!!

What the hell were Brown and Blair thinking!

Turncoats.

Or it could be the example of workers following money?

wotsthat

StevieJ wrote: »

As I pointed out if they did not receive that pension they may receive other benefit payments e.g. payment of rent. I guess it is part of some marginal pension paradox where all is not as it seems on the surface.

I see what you mean.

There are other benefits to the, for example, NHS scheme which I have some experience of...

...index linking as standard
...decent life insurance (death in service benefiits)
...a good lump sum on top without having to sacrifice any pension

My wife pays £150, or so, into the NHS pension each month. To replicate the benefits in a private scheme she'd have to pay £625.

Some of the benefits will doubtless be off-set against her lack of ability to claim means tested benefits but it can't be denied that the public sector have access to generous pension provision.