Public sector wellcome to the real world

taking_stock

paparossco wrote: »

Serwotka and Maude clash on 'Today'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9526000/9526631.stm

Francis Maude was less than convincing - 'floundering' over affordability - 08.00mins . Bang goes his promotion.....

well worth listening to - the total cost of public pensions is decreasing steadily over the next 40 years to 1.4%GDP

Muscle750

Many public sector jobs will go as have in the private sector when will Public sector workers realise they are not untouchable. Yes i know there are low paid workers in the public sector. and for the question earlier on my pension i pay approx £200 a month into my private pension in the pot at the moment is approx £40k my wife who is in the public sector pays £120 and in her "public pot is nearing £50k. However i do get life insurance with mine and if i did do one before i retired she would get 4 times my annual salary and all my contributions back.
This country needs to get a grip with more than pensions firstly immigration for a start why is it if my daughter went to Aberdeen university she would pay as we live in England if your Polish you can go for nothing work that one out. I even know of one case now caught out where a Polish man living here claimed for 5 children in child benefit etc even thou they had never even stepped in the country
As said we had no way of holding the country to ransom in the private sector get used to it because no matter its going to happen no matter how much you kick off...............the public pension gravy boat is sinking so grab your life jacket its below the sign "Real world starts here"

EclipsedMind

taking_stock wrote: »

well worth listening to - the total cost of public pensions is decreasing steadily over the next 40 years to 1.4%GDP

Yes but thats based on many assumptions including GDP growth and much of the hutton report having being implemented. The real truth is that whilst it is a declining share of GDP it is in fact increasing in cost year on year. So it will cost the country more but will seem cheaper if the economy grows well in the interim.

To my mind the real issue is that pensions need to find a middle ground where both public and private are fit for purpose and provide a decent retirement. The raid on private pensions by the last government have widened the gap. As to how we equalise the two I personally have no idea and freely admit it.

I personally pay 18% of my salary into my pension due to starting late and not wanting to impoverished in my retirement. It does mean that we don't have a flash car, big house or big tv but 20 years from now hopefully it will be worth it.

EM

Thicko2

Uglymug wrote: »

“Serwotka and Maude clash on 'Today'. “

Serwotka didn’t say very much left most of the talking to Maude. I now know why he isn’t prepared to debate the issues - he didn’t offer any solutions and certainly wasn't prepared to listen to reason.
Serwotka did use the usual Union tactic about referring to people in very privileged positions. I presume he wasn’t referring to himself and his £125,000 salary and his pension worth millions. If I was a member of his Union I'd certainly be very disappointed with his performance.

I dont think that Serwotka had to say much. The interviewer picked up the facts that unaffordable as argued by Cameron, Alexandar et al is a lie, as demosntrated by NAO and Hutton report. He/they are on shakey grounds on the unaffordable line - the new mantra is untenable.

Snippets i hear is that Maude was constructive in negoitiations and that the Alexandar foray into the debate last week has left him, as chief government negoitiator, looking a bit of an idiot.

Very clever politics by Osbourne on all of this, tough financial decisions made by him, but actioned and argued by his patsies, often of the liberal democrat variety. Osbourne has already trousered the increased public sector contributions in his budget last year, CPI to RPI has already been implemented so the unions have a good point - this is not negoitiation in the sense of the word.

I personally find it immoral that the scheme which has no explicit member contributions has no proposals for any increases, the armed forces. This is the one which is generating the biggest increase in treasury suppport over the next 5 years they keep talking about!

Slaphead is right that the real argument is disparity between public and private (and to be fair except the top end of private which seems to have kept most of their pension perks - read any company report in which you have shares).

My view on this though is it should not be a race to the bottom, and also equally if it is, the government should be explicit about it, not hide under affordability.

Note - good private sector companies have maintained final career average salaries (at least for existing staff), or pay significant employer contributions to pension (10 - 15%). I am getting fed up with all these noddy analysis here of employee only contributions, what pot that creates, and what annuity it will provide ignoring any employer contributions. Good employers pay pension contributions to their staff of one or other sort.

I expect in such analysis to reflect the public sector employers to meet the standards of shell, BP, john lewis, tesco, etc on pension provision not some tinpot operator.

Thicko2

Muscle750 wrote: »

Many public sector jobs will go as have in the private sector when will Public sector workers realise they are not untouchable. Yes i know there are low paid workers in the public sector. and for the question earlier on my pension i pay approx £200 a month into my private pension in the pot at the moment is approx £40k my wife who is in the public sector pays £120 and in her "public pot is nearing £50k. However i do get life insurance with mine and if i did do one before i retired she would get 4 times my annual salary and all my contributions back.
This country needs to get a grip with more than pensions firstly immigration for a start why is it if my daughter went to Aberdeen university she would pay as we live in England if your Polish you can go for nothing work that one out. I even know of one case now caught out where a Polish man living here claimed for 5 children in child benefit etc even thou they had never even stepped in the country
As said we had no way of holding the country to ransom in the private sector get used to it because no matter its going to happen no matter how much you kick off...............the public pension gravy boat is sinking so grab your life jacket its below the sign "Real world starts here"

How much does your wife's employer pay into her pension as well?

jem16

Muscle750 wrote: »

i pay approx £200 a month into my private pension in the pot at the moment is approx £40k my wife who is in the public sector pays £120 and in her "public pot is nearing £50k.

Thank you.

What percentage of your salary do you pay in and is there employer contributions?

What percentage is your wife paying?

However i do get life insurance with mine and if i did do one before i retired she would get 4 times my annual salary and all my contributions back.

Presumably your wife has 3 times her annual salary plus a half pension for you if she dies in service?

Koicarp

EclipsedMind wrote: »

Yes but thats based on many assumptions including GDP growth and much of the hutton report having being implemented.

NO! this is with no change from today's pension systems.

StephenM_2

Thicko2 wrote: »

Note - good private sector companies have maintained final career average salaries (at least for existing staff), or pay significant employer contributions to pension (10 - 15%). I am getting fed up with all these noddy analysis here of employee only contributions, what pot that creates, and what annuity it will provide ignoring any employer contributions. Good employers pay pension contributions to their staff of one or other sort.

I expect in such analysis to reflect the public sector employers to meet the standards of shell, BP, john lewis, tesco, etc on pension provision not some tinpot operator.

I'm in a private sector FS scheme currently paying 5% for a 1/60th pension. They are currently consulting over changes which would give existing members a choice of

1. Staying in the 1/60th scheme but increasing contributions to 9%
2. Sticking with 5% but changing to a 1/80th scheme.
3. Moving to a DC scheme with 10% employer contributions.

Normal Retirement Age would be 65 - the same as it is now.

They are also going to close the FS scheme to new members in September.

I'd like to know how this compares with the proposed public sector changes.

Tammer

It's always a bit surprising that when there's an uproar about some section of society's pensions, noone bothers about MPs pensions - which are more generous than most of the pensions that people are complaining about!

Thicko2

StephenM wrote: »

I'm in a private sector FS scheme currently paying 5% for a 1/60th pension. They are currently consulting over changes which would give existing members a choice of

1. Staying in the 1/60th scheme but increasing contributions to 9%
2. Sticking with 5% but changing to a 1/80th scheme.
3. Moving to a DC scheme with 10% employer contributions.

Normal Retirement Age would be 65 - the same as it is now.

They are also going to close the FS scheme to new members in September.

I'd like to know how this compares with the proposed public sector changes.

hi Stephen

Thanks for sharing this. The answer is that all public sector schemes are different! it sounds like you have a good employer.

I can tell you from my nhs perspective.

my current scheme is 1995 nhs scheme.

1/80th plus 3X lump sum. 60 retirement age. i pay 7.5% employee contribution currently. 2008 scheme for members since that point would be a 60ths scheme, no lump sum. retirement age 65. It is in essence a poorer scheme unless you are going to work to 64 then it is about even.

Reductions (subject to legal challenge) due to CPI to RPI have already been implemented. The impact on benefits of this impact have been estimated at circa a 15% to 20% reduction. I suspect my CETV value has been reduced by over 20% already from this change alone.

I have 17 years service.

The proposals for future arent yet clear.

From Hutton perspective, it would move for future pension to be based upon career average rather than final salary basis. As an equitable proposal i could accept this.

It also talks about an increase in employee contributions an average of 3.2%. However to protect low paid employees and the fact that armed forces will not be hit, informal leaks from negotiations so far would suggest my 7.5% contribution would increase to 13%. The next level up for tiered contributions to 15% from 8.5%.

retirement age would move in line with state pension age to 66/67/68. i would suspect that these can only get higher. i would struggle to do my job at 60, yet alone 67.

No accrual rate proposals have been published openly in the press. Again informal leaks suggest a worsening from current levels.

The NHS scheme is a ponzi scheme to use pejorative terms, yearly inputs pay yearly outputs. In addition the former outpay the later. So in reality it currently returns £2b a year to treasury.

So the proposed extra contributions in effect pay for defecit reduction, in short term. I would like them shown on my payslip as defecit reduction tax (public sector employees). My view from NAO and hutton report is that previous changes from 2008, have reduced within the NHS scheme, any further liability placed upon the employee. we have already accepted the principle if the current scheme becomes unaffordable, employees carry the risk.

I have lost all faith in the government, i would much rather bank existing pension based on current terms based on RPI. comitment to 14% employer contributions, plus mine collectively 21.5% year and i would move to a SIPP environment for future pension growth. i think i could do a better job than your average fund manager, and i dont trust this government when they need a few more quid down the line. The problem is they cant afford this!