Public sector wellcome to the real world

Darren_G

roysterer wrote: »

When People in the Private Sector joined there Companies the Pension Scheme was also looked upon as part of the renumeration package. So whats the difference????
The Private Sector Final Salary Pension Schemes became unsustainable so changes had to be made that none of us liked but we had to accept these changes.
The Public Sector Final Salary Scheme is unsustainable so changes have to be made, Please tell me what is the difference??????
Stop pretending that there is not a problem with Public Sector Pensions in there current format, get real.

roysterer wrote: »

The Private Sector Final Salary Pension Schemes became unsustainable so changes had to be made that none of us liked but we had to accept these changes.

- caused by poor investment choices and less than ethical employers/scheme administrators.... seems the financial sector has been scr*wing us all for years

roysterer wrote: »

The Public Sector Final Salary Scheme is unsustainable so changes have to be made

- There you go again, lumping the 'public sector' together as a single entity. The snivel servants have most to lose, which is why they have jumped on the teacher's bandwagon for Thursday.

Are any Council services on strike this week?? No! And as other posters have pointed out, most LGPS schemes are self financing and running at a surplus - through ethical management and wise investment choices. As stated earlier, they funded a 'payment holiday' for councils which will never be paid back into the fund.

Now, let's look at a small proportion of what the 'public sector' gives back to the economy - pulled from the annual report of the fund I am in:

£78.5million invested in private equity funds
£200million in currency funds
£27.4million in aerospace and defence
£165million in corporate bonds

In total, the fund has £7.9billion in net assets. So, destroy the LGPS and this level of investment reduces significantly or disappears, multiplied by dozens of individual schemes. That would be great for the economy, wouldn't it!

Le_Chuck

Alter_ego wrote: »

If you're referring to the armed forces scheme. It has been established that armed forces pay is ameliarated (reduced) to provide a pension. The MOD has admitted this.

and are they facing further reduction like the rest of the public sector are facing effective pay cuts

Koicarp

Strong stuff from the RCN below. We've never had a strike, in fact we've never even had a vote considering a strike, though we did once have a vote so that we could have a vote to consider a strike if the need arises.

"RCN: no need for another major change to nurses’ pensions
Published: 21 June 2011
The Royal College of Nursing has restated its view that there is no need for another major change to nurses’ pensions.
In 2008, RCN members agreed to increase their NHS pensions contributions and limit the money paid into the pension fund by the taxpayer. The RCN says that these reforms are sufficient and will result in the cost of public sector pensions falling by £67 billion over the next 50 years.
Dr Peter Carter, RCN Chief Executive & General Secretary, says: “When the NHS pension fund is in surplus to the tune of £2 billion, at the same time that nurses are feeling the effects of a pay freeze, our members are rightly angered by yet another pensions hit. The proposed 3.2 per cent increase on employee contributions from March 2012 is neither necessary nor appropriate.”
The RCN believes that increasing the occupational and state pension ages to 66 or older takes no account of the often extreme physical and mental pressures experienced by nurses over the course of a working life.
The RCN will continue to speak up for its members and the concerns they expressed at RCN Congress in April."

Chickenbrain2009

I have news for the people who think that this is being paid for by the taxpayer....they are being taken for a ride.
All my life I have paid into my pension, just as other people have paid into theirs. Where has the money gone? The average public sector pension is 9K. MY tax goes towards paying for other people, presumably the people who are whining about public sector pensions dont think anyone should pay anything towards anyone else. A nice world that would be.
Stop listening to the crap spewed out by the Govt. The reality is that the money has been diverted elsewhere, if they were a private company they would be prosecuted for negligence. Its nothing to do with 'the real world' of private pensions. I have a second private pension and in fact it has been a much better deal.
So please, SHUT UP. In a few years time, when no one wants to be a nurse, or a teacher, or a policeman, people will start to wonder where we went wrong.

chumbasmum

For me the issue is also to do with bringing in all these changes in one go without, it seems, allowing people to be fully aware of the financial state of the Teacher's Pension.
The thought of having to work until 68 and pay more for less makes me think whether there is as much advantage in paying into the scheme. I am 40 and so my situation is slightly different but new entrants into the profession will probably be less likely to join, have no pension to call on and the state will end up paying extra in credits/benefits.
Someone else might be able to help but as far as I am aware, there is no choice to pay less in for a smaller pension... claiming the pension earlier for a reduced rate etc.

Did find this though....

"Depressingly for a male teacher who works full time as a Head of Department or lower and retires at retirement age and not early then the average life expectancy after retirement is a glorious 18 months"

And this was in the days of normal retirement age of 65.....bloody hell... we'd better have undertakers on the site!

jackyann

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I worked in engineering for 38 years until I was invalided out.
Same company.
Salary back in the 90's was just under £40K at best
After a few promotions and being staffed my final salary at enforced retirment was just £30K and for that I was the companies chief engineer.
Pension system rules decreed the average of the best 2 years from the previous 10 was £28k and that's what my pension was based on.

And It's a 1/120 scheme, unlike your 1/90 or 1/60 or even 1/45:eek: for doctors/surgeons

Does that explain why "we have little sympathy??

To go back to my original point, I don't know if that is fair or not, just as I don't know if my situation is fair or not.
However, I am not aware of any of my medical colleagues having any different pension arrangement to the rest of the NHS (1/80)

Old_Slaphead

Thicko2 wrote: »

I think old slapahead those figures were generated before RPI to Calculation was included but i will check.

No they weren't. To quote your good self - read the Hutton report.

Alter_ego

Le_Chuck wrote: »

and are they facing further reduction like the rest of the public sector are facing effective pay cuts

A member of the Army told me that Local overseas allowance is no longer paid. I don't know if this is true but it used to be a large part of pay when outside UK

ILW

Koicarp wrote: »

Not complaining, just giving some real figures for people to understand what they are aguing about. Not everybody lives to 85 either, neither of my parents reached 65, so I doubt I will get to 85 or anything like it.

It appears that the average of death will be 85 within the next 10 years.

Subsidised cigarettes and McDs may solve the problem though.

Andy_L

geoffgeofftygeoff wrote: »

The RPI to CPI change is not an accrued benefit as I understand it.

Well thats the big legal question thats going before the courts.
Altough, amusingly, various Tory/Lib Dems politicians are on record as saying, before the election, that they saw RPI indexation as an accrued right