Public sector wellcome to the real world

Darren_G

roysterer wrote: »

What is happening today regarding Public Sector Pensions and contributions is what has already happened in the Private Sector.
Final salary Pensions are now gone forever!!!!!!! as much as we all dislike it.

Do you think it is all about the final salary?? I bet the majority of public sector workers stay in the same job their entire working life. Once again, news reports of the fat cat directors and managers exploiting loopholes and having their salaries increased for their last two years as an 'unofficial' golden handshake casts a shadow over the majority.

roysterer wrote: »

My contribution has doubled for less benefit. I am not prepared to pay higher income tax to subsidise public sector pensions as well.

I would expect that it is more likely to be your council tax (most being frozen) which bears the brunt of your generous contribution to public pensions. Your income tax will contribute to civil service and MP's pensions (has anybody taken a look at what a poor deal those hard working MP's get??).

Don't remember anyone complaining when it was considered the pension pot was so healthy - through good investment practices - that the employers could take a 'payment holiday' for a couple of years.

roysterer wrote: »

I guess we have all been shafted by incompetent past and present governments.

At last, an area of common ground...

Does nobody see that at the moment there is a lot of postulating in both camps. The government are seeing how far they can push, and the unions are trying to keep up the illusion that they still have some power.

Seeing as the OP wanted to welcome the public sector to the real world (sorry for not quoting exactly, can't bring myself to purposely misspell), I just wonder at what age most private sector employees start(ed) making contributions into a pension?. Nowadays, public sector employees can opt out of automatic enrolment, but most of us now in their 40's or those entering employment before 1990 would have started paying in as soon as they reached 18 or the day they started work if over 18. Maybe the real issue to be addressed is to make it a level playing field and have everyone start contributing into a pension from day 1 of their working life?

I personally have no issue over increased contributions or average salary pensions in local government. What I do object to is losing the right to retire early if I choose (on reduced/pro rata benefits of course - the '85 year rule' has already gone). I had a plan for retirement, which involved making sure I was mortgage free and topping up my public sector pension with part time, less stressful work and returns on investments. By my 'desired' retirement age of 60, I will have contributed for 42 years - is that not a long enough period to deserve at least a choice??

paramedic

leveller2911 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that anyone with earnings under £15k a year won't be affected?.

My brother in law is a Paramedic, he is 50 yrs old and I believe he will retire in 5yrs time on a full pension which is wrong . Why can't he carry on working till 67 like I will have to in the Private sector?.He is paid very well, he has had about 2 years off work with football and Judo injuries all on full pay and there are many like him who take all the sick days they are "entitled" to , so the Public sector need to look a little closer to home to see where much of the blame lies.

It makes my blood boil when we hear how certain public sector workers can retire at 55 when on the other hand a Bricklayer,Carpenter,steel worker,farm Labourers etc are expected to retire at 67 when they work outside come rain or shine and are lucky if they get 4 weeks holiday a year whereas your average teacher gets 13 weeks a year for Jollies.Now if they worked 3 of those 13 weeks for training etc it still leaves 10 wks a year for holidays........

I don't dispute that many Public secctor workers are low paid and work long hours but theres an equel number who think they should be "entitled" . When I was 16 and starting my apprenticeship we had a chap come in and tell us all about how we would pay for a National Insurance stamp which would allow us to retire from work at 65 and receive a full state pension.
Times have changed and so have the promises but it would be nice to see the Politicians to take the lead and cut their own golden,gilt edged pension schemes.....;)

Get to know your brother in law a bit better!

Unlike the mlitary, police and fire service, Paramedics have to work until they are 60 as they are under the NHS pension. Most never make it to that age on front line due to the physical and mental demands of the job. Do you really expect a 66 yr old at 3 o'clock in the morning to be on top of things when dealing with a life threatening situation? Would you feel safe being carried downstairs by a 66 yr old?
The NHS scheme as most other Public sector schemes undergone major changes in the last few years already to make them affordable in the long term and most are now funded completely by contributions so are no burden on the taxpayer. In fact, the treasury will be able to borrow up to 10 billion from the NHS pension over the next 10 years due to the surplus!

paramedic

atush wrote: »

A Voice of reason who is actually related to someone with one of those fab 1.5% pensions PS pensions. Not to mention the wise words above by Wearside.

we pay 26% of salary into pension plus are saving extra but I can't see how we will be anywhere near half current salary.

Paramedics are part of the NHS pension and pay 6-8.5% of their earnings and can retire from 60 at present.

WE ARE NOT GIVEN THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER EMERGENCY WORKERS OR THE MILITARY!

Thicko2

So NHS scheme £2bn back to the treasury each, year, LGPS the same, NAO and parliamentary committee, and Lord Hutton report all saying these schemes are stable and expect net GDP contribution to fall over the next 50 years.

Can some one explain why the proposed increased employee contributions do not apply to the armed forces who currently nominally contribute 0%?

Unlike the other schemes as highlighted above which are stable in terms of GDP requirments it is the MOD schemes which are generating a signiicant element of this much talked about blackhole.

3v3

paramedic wrote: »

Paramedics are part of the NHS pension and pay 6-8.5% of their earnings and can retire from 60 at present.

WE ARE NOT GIVEN THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER EMERGENCY WORKERS OR THE MILITARY!

You can strike, as can firemen; Police and military cannot.

Thicko2

Ok another question, based on danny alexander's announcement that extra contributions from employees is a fait accompli. Indeed it must be as was in Osbourne budget plans, what should actually happen to these in relation to the NHS scheme where they commence in 2012/13?

Will they be set aside and kept seperate?

No of course not they will increase the existing £2bn contribution to defecit reduction, public expenditure costs already in place.

With a bit of luck for the condems it could be with the existing RPI to CPI reductions planned, there may be a little more to help support defecit reduction as well.

Can any of the supporters of the proposals on public sector pension changes explain the fairness of this approach? To me it is a windfall tax on NHS workers for defecit reduction purposes.

sammyjammy

swanny65 wrote: »

Personally having 30 years in the scheme when the changes are likely to come in 2015 i may opt out because 30/80's from age 60 may be better than 40/80 with 10 years additional contributions and a 6 year longer wait.

My understanding is it won't work like that, you will have reserved rights to your pension up to the date the change takes place. So if you have 30/80ths by then you would get this pension at aged 60 as you originally expected, you would pnly wait until 66 for the 10/80ths based on average salary over that time.

I have no problem with increased contributions or a career average scheme my biggest issue is with the big bang approach and the lack of consultation, those new to the department over the last ten years (I think!) already have a retirement age of 65 but for those of us that expected 60 and will move to 66 there is no talk of any transition arrangements or compensation.

Darren_G

It was interesting to read the parliamentary pay review document, which also covers MP's pension benefits. Hidden in there is a little comparison table titled "Comparative net value to employees of associated pension benefits as a percentage of pensionable pay". The results for "Defined benefit % of pensionable pay" show local government schemes as joint lowest at 11%, closely followed by teachers and nurses at 13%. They have quoted a median value for the private sector (quoted source:Watson Wyatt) of 17%, which is just below Civil Servants who are at a whopping 18%.

None of these, however, are as high as the MP's, which come in at 20% and 22% depending on their accrual rate. The pay review report recommends a 20% cap, which is still almost double current levels for local government.

An MP is also only expected to pay in for 15 years in order to receive a £24k per year pension (based upon the 'basic'salary of approx £64k).

Edit: Please note that the indented text is Crown copyright, as it is a direct quote from the document mentioned. Don't want to get either myself or MSE in trouble for not following their rules of reproduction of text!

Another amusing paragraph within the report states:

"We understand that the PCPF is seen by MPs as a valuable part of their package and they would be reluctant to see its benefits reduced."

I wonder if the MP's threatened to strike, as the next part of the paragraph goes on to say:

"We make no recommendation at this juncture for fundamental change. However, we do invite all concerned to consider whether the scheme as currently constituted provides the best balance of contributions and benefits for MPs of different ages and different patterns of service in the House. In addition, we recommend that, in the event that it appears likely that the proposed ceiling on the (underlying) Exchequer contribution of 20 per cent of the payroll will be breached, there should be a major review of the PCPF."

So, aside from their mates in the snivel service, they are getting the highest rate of 'employer' contributions, while cutting those of Nurses, Teachers and those in local government pension schemes :T

Edit: Indented quotes are Crown copyright, as they are direct quotes from the document referred to. We can reproduce the text, so long as the source and copyright information are outlined.

gardner1

Starship9 wrote: »

Here are mine:

Dept: Defra
Position: Senior Exec Officer
Ann Salary £40K
Total Qualifying Service: 33 years

I've just taken early retirement at 51 years old:

Final wages increased by £3K = PILON payment
Lump sum £50K (tax free)
Pension (index linked, for life) £17K per annum

I'll be wanting to find some part time / casual work in due course to get a little more income but we have no mortgage and modest outgoings so it's not a bad deal.

I'm just so glad to be out of it and having secured my pension now this has all kicked off - of course it's been brewing for ages.

my heart bleeds for you

samtheman1k

moggitymog wrote: »

I work as a nurse for the NHS, the main reason I remained in the NHS for the last 12 years is because of the pension, no need to bother now, lets hope everyone doesn't leave as that will be the time when the government start to sell it off

Nothing personal against you, but I think that's a good idea...too many civil servants think they've got a job for life and consequently don't care about their job and service they require...a bit of an incentive not to stay is a good think IMO.