Public Sector Strikes

gregg1

Rotor wrote: »

And paramedic has given me a laugh too.

You do realise that ALL the NHS funding comes from the tax payer?
therefore all the pension funding comes from the tax payer. Except , that is, the contributions from nhs staff. How much do you pay as a % of salary? 6 % -bit more?bit less? Certainly it is a small fraction of the true costs.
Some public sector pensions have a pot of money behind them , (some pots are in surplus) some are paid out of ongoing taxation but those with a pot behind them are still mostly filled by the taxpayer. So you will be returning money which is ours anyway .

That is all the public sector want - the return of money which is theirs - AS TAXPAYERS THEMSELVES !!! (sorry Rotor - the brief truce is off for now !!)

Andy_L

dacouch wrote: »

Do you have a link for this as I find it very hard to believe, to finance the type of pension a NHS worker would receive from a private pension would require them to contribute in excess of 20% of their wages not 6%. So I cannot see how there would be such a big surplus when they are contributing less than is required to finance their pensions. The flow of money is more likely to be going the other way

Its a temporary thing - becase the size of the NHS has increased there are more active members paying in than retired members taking out. As the size varies over the future that ratio will change

Flyboy152

paramedic wrote: »

I pay about 6%. The contributions I pay come from my pay which I suppose comes from tax payers too.
Where does your pay come from? From a private company which gains it's profits from tax payers! We are ALL tax payers at the end of the day.

I'm all for privatisation of the NHS. Any person in employment should have to take private health insurance or get taxed more and either pay for ambulance transport or get insured for that too. All emergency treatment would still be free and pensioners and those on benefits would still receive free NHS pensions. Take away National Insurance and we could all afford Private Health Insurance which was applicable to our families needs. If you didn't take out PHI and needed treatment, you would have to pay the full cost or go without.

It would lead to a far more streamlined and efficient NHS and a lot more private hospitals being built therefore reducing the burden on the NHS and taxpayers:D

I think my irony meter is on the fritz.

paramedic

dacouch wrote: »

Do you have a link for this as I find it very hard to believe, to finance the type of pension a NHS worker would receive from a private pension would require them to contribute in excess of 20% of their wages not 6%. So I cannot see how there would be such a big surplus when they are contributing less than is required to finance their pensions. The flow of money is more likely to be going the other way

As a new user I am not allowed to post with links apparently but here is the relevant section:

Commenting on the report, Andrew Dearden, chairman of the BMA's Pensions Committee, said: The NHS pension scheme is fair to both the tax-paying public and NHS employees, and financially sustainable in the long term. As the Public Accounts Committee points out, the radical overhaul it underwent in 2008 is bringing substantial savings to taxpayers, with costs set to continue to decrease well into the future.
Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a surplus to the Treasury of over £10 billion. The Public Accounts Committee is right to point out that the Government needs to carefully assess the potential consequences of further changes to public sector pensions. Another sharp increase in contributions for NHS staff, or an increase in the retirement age, is likely to destabilise the largest public sector pension scheme, increasing the burden on the state, and creating problems with retention of senior staff.

Rotor

gregg1 wrote: »

That is all the public sector want - the return of money which is theirs - AS TAXPAYERS THEMSELVES !!! (sorry Rotor - the brief truce is off for now !!)

Nope ; I'm still on truce. I'm still waving my 'peace in our time' letter.
I've pledged to put away my rant box and only use fact , logic and humour to fight my corner ( well maybe some opinion and speculation too)
Not sure what you mean here . is it taht the money is theirs because they pay tax? - but they only make up 1/6th of the workforce ( and far less as a fraction of taxpayers assuming everyone pays tax of some sort).But they take 6/6ths of the benefit from that pension fund
The basic fact is that with increased longevity promises that seemed reasonable 30 years ago are unaffordable now.
(say) £10,000 a year pension for 10 years in retirement is a lot less than £10,000/yr for 20 years in retirement now. (Think the average female lifespan is 88 yrs so make that 28 years)

Yours Faithfully
Mr Rotor

antrobus

paramedic wrote: »

.. Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a surplus to the Treasury of over £10 billion...

Given that almost every penny the NHS receives comes from HM Treasury in the first place, I'm not so sure that argument actually makes sense.

Anyway, I think that the fairest thing to do is introduce a National Pension Scheme, have the Government take over all existing pension scheme assets and liabilities, and then pay everybody an index linked guaranteed pension based on 1/80 of the best of their last three years pay before retirement for every year they've worked. Granted we would probably have to increase the rate of basic rate tax to about 40% to pay for it all, but then everybody would be getting the same kind of pension deal when they retired, and so there's be no grounds for anybody to complain.

Rotor

paramedic wrote: »

As a new user I am not allowed to post with links apparently but here is the relevant section:

Commenting on the report, Andrew Dearden, chairman of the BMA's Pensions Committee, said: The NHS pension scheme is fair to both the tax-paying public and NHS employees, and financially sustainable in the long term. As the Public Accounts Committee points out, the radical overhaul it underwent in 2008 is bringing substantial savings to taxpayers, with costs set to continue to decrease well into the future.
Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a surplus to the Treasury of over £10 billion. The Public Accounts Committee is right to point out that the Government needs to carefully assess the potential consequences of further changes to public sector pensions. Another sharp increase in contributions for NHS staff, or an increase in the retirement age, is likely to destabilise the largest public sector pension scheme, increasing the burden on the state, and creating problems with retention of senior staff.

The BMA is the trade union for doctors and medical students!
Of course they say it's all fine. The teachers union say it's all fine , the prison officers union say it's all fine, the fire brigade union, etc. etc .etc
But as answered earlier - who paid for this surplus?
Contributions to most public sector pension schemes are rising because of the unprecedented rise in public sector employment under the previous govt. but they are accruing benefits that will have to be paid for when they retire, at great expense

Rotor

Ha - Gregg . Just noticed . My 'peace in our time' letter comment
That metaphor makes me Chamberlain which means you are ...........................
Oh No . Does that mean I lose the argument as stated by Godwins Law (First person to mention hitler/nazis on an internet thread loses the argument);)

paramedic

Rotor wrote: »

The BMA is the trade union for doctors and medical students!
Of course they say it's all fine. The teachers union say it's all fine , the prison officers union say it's all fine, the fire brigade union, etc. etc .etc
But as answered earlier - who paid for this surplus?
Contributions to most public sector pension schemes are rising because of the unprecedented rise in public sector employment under the previous govt. but they are accruing benefits that will have to be paid for when they retire, at great expense

It should be emphasised that the NHS pension scheme has already been subject to a recent overhaul. In 2007 agreement was reached between NHS employers and health unions on a new scheme, implemented in 2008, meaning that many of the changes put forward by Lord Hutton in his review of public sector pensions already apply in the NHS. The normal pension age for new staff increased from 60 to 65, and employers’ contributions were capped. Doctors’ contributions increased from an average 6% of salary to an average 8.5% - a 30% rise in the cost.
The NHS scheme is sometimes cited as an example of a ’lucrative’ public sector pension scheme, which the country cannot afford. However, it is not funded solely by taxpayers, but by NHS staff - with higher contributions for the highest paid - and employers, including GPs themselves, who pay employer contributions of 14%. It was designed to be sustainable over the long term, and to withstand changes in the economic environment through a cost-sharing agreement which protects the taxpayer from future cost increases. The scheme is in a very strong funding position at present; in the years up to 2015/16 it will provide a surplus to the Treasury (over benefits paid out) of £10.7bn.* This essentially means that the government is able to borrow money from the NHS pension scheme at a preferential rate.:D:eek:

eyeinthesky

I have read this thread with some interest, as I am an ex-civil servant. When I took my job, it was on the understanding that pay, holidays, and pension were part of the package. This is also true of jobs in the private sector, that is, you get the job and all the benefits on offer. If the benefits don't meet your expectations, then look for other employment.

I was an mod firefighter, and we had parity with local authority firefighters with regard to pay. Our pension scheme was non-contributory, but local authority firefighters paid 11% in pension contributions, so our pay was reduced by that 11% to give the same take-home pay. This didn't really work out the same, due to tax we were a little worse off. We did have a final salary scheme, but had to work for 40 years to get a half-pay pension. I believe the local authority got the same after 25 years. I know this is comparing public sector with public sector, but I feel that I was contributing 11% of salary towards my pension.

After 27 years service, I was prematurely retired on medical grounds. I had failed a hearing test some 10 years earlier, and was advised by a specialist that the hearing loss was consistent with industrial noise damage. I tried to find out the noise level produced by thunderflashes, a military explosive used in training, but the information was not available to me, and other noise sources were protected against with ear defenders, so I could not prove that my employment had actually caused the damage. I therefore could not make any claim for damages. Anyway, I would have been risking my continued employment, so I kept quiet, and no further action was taken on either side. Fast forward 10 years, and I am required to have another hearing test, which I failed, again. This time, they were advised, by their occupational health provider, to find me other employment to avoid any further damage to my hearing, which had worsened. There was no other job suitable, so I was retired. My pension years were enhanced to 33 years, and this resulted in a pension of around £8,500 per annum. Hardly gold plated, but it is index-linked. Does this make me a fat-cat?