Public sector wellcome to the real world

toshy

Uglymug wrote: »

(long post - sorry - my point is made in the last paragraph)

Afraid you’ve got me wrong there, I’ve probably read the Daily Mail once, maybe twice in the last 3 years and I’m absolutely certain I haven’t purchased a copy in the last ten years. I’ve never been to prison, I’ve never abused a child, I don’t drive a merc or BMW (don’t sell drugs), I don’t work for a bank, I’ve never even been offered a cash back hander let alone accepted one and every penny I’ve earned has also been taxed at source. I’m just your average, hard working, non higher rate tax payer trying to make ends meet in the private sector. I drive a 6 year old Mondeo. I feel rather proud that I’ve never ever been unemployed for even a day. I’ve learnt to stand on my own two feet.

I seriously hope that if your doing your picketing at a school that your seeking some advice from your good wife regarding the way these school children are being abused. It’s fine example they’re being shown by their teachers in that if their parents are struggling financially and can’t afford to give them all their pocket money it’s alright to throw fits, scream and have tantrums.

Also, it sounds like you don’t sound very happy in your current job, you really must try and be brave and stand on your own feet and try and move on. In the private sector we’ve all learnt to fight our own battles and if we’re not happy with our current employment, if our terms change for example we try and find new employment. If we’re too useless to find new employment we’ve learnt to grin and bare it and suffer any changes foisted on us. I personally am now in my 5th job. I would never dream of depriving a school child of their education and in effect using them as cannon fodder to achieve this. Also, you say that there’s no benefits to your job, surely if you’re associating with drug dealers you could perhaps strike up a deal to temporarily help when things gets too bad. In the private sector one has learnt to take advantage of such opportunities.
I seriously hope that this government introduces new legalisation soon to combat these Unions, after the twin towers incident in New York we managed to rush through some laws to fight these terrorists. The same should be done now. If for example your pension is based on years service and you go on strike for a day how could anyone that is of a sound mind claim they’ve worked a full year, I think it’s perfectly reasonable in such cases for any one on strike to lose a full years pensionable service. The sooner this law is introduced the better. I need to write to my MP suggesting this.

Now, lets get down to some facts, since you’ve mentioned the Thatcher era I’d like to make you aware about some of the things done by the previous Government, things that didn’t affect you in your cotton wool enclosed public sector world. The one of the first things Brown did was raid my pension and introduced taxation on its income. We didn’t have the luxury that you currently have of it happening only on new contributions it also happened to our existing pot. In case you fail to comprehend the implications of this it was like introducing a 50% tax on your cash ISA and freezing it and not allowing you to take any money out. The same “No more Boom or Bust” chancellor also practically gave our gold away, it had been collected over centuries, it was called a gold reserve for a reason, to be used in hard times, Gold has now gone up 5 fold, it would now have help us greatly in our current crisis.

Many private sector investors (including me) lost money when the Government regulated Equitable Life pension company collapsed. When seeking compensation the labour MP Ruth Kelly stood up in the house of commons and said no compensation is warranted because only rich people invested in these Private Pension. Absolutely scandalous. I’m certainly in no way rich, I’d been contributing for about ten years. This had a Government Guarantee but it was worthless.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind paying taxes to pay people working in the public sector, I think the way the disabled are currently being treated is shocking, I’m also against the pension changes being foisted to women in their late 50s. I’m happy to pay my taxes for working teachers, police, nurses and everyone else who, I’m sure, are all doing a grand job.

A public sector worker with forty years pension entitlement could retire at 60, it doesn’t matter if he’s on 60ths or 80ths, by the time you factor in the pension contribution and national insurance he now won’t be paying, the increase in taxation allowance he will get, his state pension, he’ll end up on more than what he was on when working. With the increase in longevity rates he’ll probably on average live till about 90. That’s not a pension, that’s a 30 year holiday on full pay for 40 years service, this is obscene and a scandal, I as a tax payer absolutely refuse to pay it.
　

　
　
　
　
　

The retirement age for public sector workers was raised to 65 in 2008. They can still retire earlier but on much lower pension. See my previous post. Even on my lowly income all of the pension I will receive until my late 70's is entirely funded by my own personal contributions without any addition of investment income, or input from the employer contributions.

Uglymug

toshy wrote: »

All of those slagging off the public sector workers who are defending their working conditions really make me mad! I’m betting my bottom dollar that they also are the same people who would be first to complain if the public services which they rely on were reduced or less effective.
I’d respectfully suggest they look at some pure facts.
I am a member of the largest union UNISON who represent some of the lowest paid workers in the public sector, many working on or around the minimum wage level. To date UNISON have not chosen to ballot their members on strike action, however the progress on the talks has not been very encouraging, so this remains a possibility.
I would also like to point out that in 2008 public sector workers underwent a pension review in which contributions and retirement age rose, whilst benefits were reduced. The previous lump sum retirement payment was axed and the option to reduce monthly pension in order to have a lump sum replaced this.The Unions accepted this deal without strike action because they accepted the financial implications of the scheme where pensioners were living longer. We were assured that this scheme was viable. This begs the question why only 3 years later it has become necessary to review it again.
I have worked in the public sector all my life, both in the NHS and education sectors. I chose to do this rather than work in the private sector, where my salary would have been between 2-3 times higher, because I wanted to make a valuable contribution to society. I would like to remind all private sector grouchers, that they too could have made, and still can make this choice. A lower salary with better retirement benefits or a higher salary with lower retirement benefits…it’s simply swings and roundabouts isn’t it?
When I first started in the public sector (in 1968) it was mandatory to pay into the government superannuation scheme. The money we paid plus our employers contribution was (we were told) to be invested to accrue interest which would meet the cost of our pensions.
By the time I retire my personal contribution to the scheme will amount to over £81,900.00. My annual pension when I retire at 65 is currently projected to be £7,200 and I am lucky that as I had paid into the scheme prior to 2008 I will still receive a lump sum of £10,385. So let’s do some maths!!! By my reckoning the money I have paid in will meet my lump sum and fully meet my annual pension for over 11 years, i.e. until I am 76 yrs old, EVEN if there is no interest accrued on it from the investment, and WITHOUT needing to draw on any of the contributions made by my employers (the government). I would like to question how the investment of the money paid in by the millions of public sector workers, plus the employers contributions has been handled, before accepting the need for any further cuts to our pension benefits.

To buy this pension index linked in the private sector would cost in the region of £250,000 - There's plenty of annuity sites on the internet if you wish to check this figure.

toshy

toshy wrote: »

The retirement age for public sector workers was raised to 65 in 2008. They can still retire earlier but on much lower pension. See my previous post. Even on my lowly income all of the pension I will receive until my late 70's is entirely funded by my own personal contributions without any addition of investment income, or input from the employer contributions.

I am a woman and in 2008 I was in my late 50's, I now have to work to 65 to receive my full pension. The current talks are about this being raised even higher.

Uglymug

toshy wrote: »

The retirement age for public sector workers was raised to 65 in 2008. They can still retire earlier but on much lower pension. See my previous post. Even on my lowly income all of the pension I will receive until my late 70's is entirely funded by my own personal contributions without any addition of investment income, or input from the employer contributions.

Sorry I got my figures wrong - I've reworked my example
A public sector worker with forty years pension entitlement could retire at 65, it doesn’t matter if he’s on 60ths or 80ths, by the time you factor in the pension contribution and national insurance he now won’t be paying, the increase in taxation allowance he will get, his state pension, he’ll end up on more than what he was on when working. With the increase in longevity rates he’ll probably on average live till about 90. That’s not a pension, that’s a 25 year holiday on full pay for 40 years service, this is obscene and still a scandal, I as a tax payer absolutely refuse to pay it.

toshy

Uglymug wrote: »

To buy this pension index linked in the private sector would cost in the region of £250,000 - There's plenty of annuity sites on the internet if you wish to check this figure.

My point was mainly that I have doubts that the money we and the government have paid has actually ben invested. During the years I have worked my take-home pay has ranged from £100 a month in the 60's to £900 a month now.
Of course I could always get a job in Sainsbury's and earn more for the same number of hours worked, then afford to pay for a private pension. The fact is I have chosen to work in the public sector.
If we all left and worked in the private sector instead, where would that leave the public services?

toshy

Uglymug wrote: »

Sorry I got my figures wrong - I've reworked my example
A public sector worker with forty years pension entitlement could retire at 65, it doesn’t matter if he’s on 60ths or 80ths, by the time you factor in the pension contribution and national insurance he now won’t be paying, the increase in taxation allowance he will get, his state pension, he’ll end up on more than what he was on when working. With the increase in longevity rates he’ll probably on average live till about 90. That’s not a pension, that’s a 25 year holiday on full pay for 40 years service, this is obscene and still a scandal, I as a tax payer absolutely refuse to pay it.

Oh sorry! I must have missed something here! So private sector workers still have to pay pension contibutions, do not get state pension, taxation allowances and continue to pay National Insurance after they retire then? Well that's a bum*mer! I'd complain to the government and go on strike if I were you!

Uglymug

toshy wrote: »

My point was mainly that I have doubts that the money we and the government have paid has actually ben invested. During the years I have worked my take-home pay has ranged from £100 a month in the 60's to £900 a month now.
Of course I could always get a job in Sainsbury's and earn more for the same number of hours worked, then afford to pay for a private pension. The fact is I have chosen to work in the public sector.
If we all left and worked in the private sector instead, where would that leave the public services?

The people in the private sector would gladly take your job.
Your pension is worth about £250,000 - it doesn't matter how you managed to get it.

Uglymug

toshy wrote: »

Oh sorry! I must have missed something here! So private sector workers still have to pay pension contibutions, do not get state pension, taxation allowances and continue to pay National Insurance after they retire then? Well that's a bum*mer! I'd complain to the government and go on strike if I were you!

Does'nt apply to us - most of us won't have the luxury of a pension. WE WONT HAVE MADE THE HUGE PENSION SAVINGS YOUR PENSIONS ARE WORTH.

To get £15000 per year, index linked would cost me about £500000. I just havn't got it. I need to start doing the Lottery.

sharnad

Uglymug wrote: »

The people in the private sector would gladly take your job.
Your pension is worth about £250,000 - it doesn't matter how you managed to get it.

Is she is on £900 a month take home pay and worked 40/80 and retired at 68 she would have to live until she is 101.

You really think that every public sector worked is going to live until 100

sharnad

Uglymug wrote: »

Does'nt apply to us - most of us won't have the luxury of a pension. WE WONT HAVE MADE THE HUGE PENSION SAVINGS YOUR PENSIONS ARE WORTH.

To get £15000 per year, index linked would cost me about £500000. I just havn't got it. I need to start doing the Lottery.

You would need to be a higher office in charge of over a hundred people to get that for your pension