Public sector wellcome to the real world

toshy

jem16 wrote: »

Do you know what effect those changes had on you?

Most of the changes were minimal in the LGPS;

1. Retirement age remained at 65.

2. It changed from an 1/80ths scheme to a 1/60ths scheme. So if you had 40 years full service in the old scheme you had a 1/2 final salary pension plus lump sum of 3 x pension. In the new scheme that would be 2/3 final salary pension and the ability to commute part of the pension to take a lump sum. That works out exactly the same - new scheme is actually slightly better if you take the full 25% tax free lump sum.

3. Death in Service benefits were increased from 2x salary to 3x salary.

4. Contributions rates for anyone earning under £19k in 2008 actually decreased - so this would be the "vast" majority that you talk about.

5. AVCs always existed so no change. Buying Added Years was discontinued (although those already paying could continue) and was replaced with Additional Pension. Added Years was a much better option but not so many people chose this because of its high cost relative to using the AVC option.

Other public serrvice schemes saw no change for existing members (other than the removal of Added Years) but new members had their retirement age increased from age 60 to age 65. Now I agree that's not so good as it affected teachers and NHS staff who will find it difficult to continue after age 60.

However all in all, for the LGPS there hasn't been much change so far.

Could you explain what you mean by "commuting" your pension when you left the NHS? Commuting means giving up some of your pension to take more lump sum and can only happen when you actually retire.

Do you mean that you left your NHS pension where it is and became a deferred member or do you mean you trasnferred your NHS pension to the LGPS?

As to the lump sum - you have lost nothing on this as I have already explained above.

No I fully agree with you on that.

However a lot of your gripe seems to be because you don't fully understand your pension scheme and the changes to it in 2008.



It's swings and roundabouts really. If you don't earn enough to get tax relief, it is unlikely that you will have enough pension to pay tax on .

However I still don't think it's fair to say that the "vast majority" of public sector workers earn less than £7475.



It's not compulsory for anyone on any income to pay into it. However they would be pretty stupid not to.

The benefits received in place of SERPS in a final salary scheme far outweigh what you would get by remaining in SERPS/S2P.



I agree people should know more about their pension scheme. However scheme booklets are available for anyone to read and regular updates have been sent to establishments and put on the websites. Problem is - how many actually read and understand them? I'm not sure that you do.

The changes to the public sector have to take place - they are simply not sustainable in their present form.

Most of the changes so far proposed by Hutton will make little difference to the majority, except for the increased contributions of approx 6% to 9% for some ( not sure how this affects the LGPS). A CARE scheme will affect higher earners rather than the average to low earner.

The increase in the retirement age will have a big effect but again it's probably necessary.

At the moment all benefits already built up will be preserved - rightly so.

Indexation changing from RPI to CPI with no consultation - then yes that's a gripe.

Have you considered talking to the numerous Learning Support Assistants which the government brought in to address the burden on teachers when the teaching unions succeeded in removing these? I doubt if you will find many, if any, earning above the tax threshold.

toshy

jem16 wrote: »

Do you know what effect those changes had on you?


However a lot of your gripe seems to be because you don't fully understand your pension scheme and the changes to it in 2008.




However I still don't think it's fair to say that the "vast majority" of public sector workers earn less than £7475.

I agree people should know more about their pension scheme. However scheme booklets are available for anyone to read and regular updates have been sent to establishments and put on the websites. Problem is - how many actually read and understand them? I'm not sure that you do..

In 2008 neither I or many workers knew about the effects of the changes until after the event.
My real gripe is that no information was sent out to even allow those of us who wanted to access it. We have only been able to gain access to it after the event. Perhaps had we known these web-sites etc existed many may have checked? and then this recent up-roar would have happened even sooner!

toshy

toshy wrote: »

In 2008 neither I or many workers knew about the effects of the changes until after the event.
My real gripe is that no information was sent out to even allow those of us who wanted to access it. We have only been able to gain access to it after the event. Perhaps had we known these web-sites etc existed many may have checked? and then this recent up-roar would have happened even sooner!

I take it that Jem is not a front-line public sector worker? But I do appreciate the information they have posted and send my respect for that. I just wish it was all so clear cut as suggested.

jem16

toshy wrote: »

I take it that Jem is not a front-line public sector worker?

What do you mean by front-line public-sector worker?

jem16

toshy wrote: »

As far as my lump sum goes, I can only base this on the pension notifications sent out to me anually by the LEA for whom I work. It clearly now has reduced by £3,000 (from £10,000) although I can chose to reduce my current £7,800 a year pension back into it in order to take it as a lump sum rather than an annual pension.

Perhaps this calculation will help then.

Pre 2008

Let's assume 40 years service under pre 2008 scheme and £12,000pa final salary.

That gives 40/80ths so £6,000pa pension and £18,000 automatic lump sum.

Pre 2008 and after 2008

Compare that with 30 years under old scheme and 10 years under new scheme - same salary basis.

30/80ths so £4,500 plus £13,500 lum sum PLUS 10/60ths gives £2,000pa with no lump sum.

Total is £6,500pa pension and £13,500 lump sum.

So basically higher pension but lower lump sum.

Let's say the lump sum is important to you and you therefore decide to commute some of your £2,000pa pension under the new scheme to give you a lump sum. So you give up £500pa and that gives you a lump sum of £6,000.

Now you have a total of £6,000pa pension ( same as it would have been under old scheme) plus £19,500 lump sum ( compared with £18k lump sum under old scheme).

So you are better off with a mixture of old and new, not worse off.

After 2008

If all 40 years was under the new scheme, that would be 40/60ths so £8,000pa pension. Give up £2,000pa pension and that gives a lump sum of £24,000 and £6,000pa pension.

So again you are better off.

I hope to work for a further 10 years to bring my pension back up to the level that it previously was by paying for the AVC's I took out.

How has it fallen?

toshy wrote: »

Perhaps had we known these web-sites etc existed many may have checked? and then this recent up-roar would have happened even sooner!

Why? You are no worse off in the LGPS with the new scheme than the old one and in some ways you are better off.

cyclonebri1

bigjl wrote: »

So to put it another way the Public sector Pensions adequately reward a career.

Private Sector Pensions aren't as good simply due to the greed of the share holders or outright owners of whichever business we are discussing at the time.

In other word Private sector Workers need to grow a pair and fight for their own pensions as the Public Sector has done.

And if anybody is unable to see the connection between the government using the excuse of the current economic situation to hammer down hard fought for employment conditions, with the excess of money paid out to those that have no intention of every contributing to anything, ever.

Well, all I can say is no wonder you never passed the assessments to get into a Public Sector job, hence why you are so happy to have a pop now.

I worked in the private sector for years, so made the decision to get a job with decent T&C's.

Anybody is allowed to apply for PS jobs.

And there have been changes to our pensions recently with the new 2008 section.

And the NHS Pension as mentioned above has a decent surplus, mainly due to all those hard working public sector workers having the good manners to drop dead soon after retiring in fairly significant numbers.

Assuming that's a statement and not a question then the answer has to be "yes"

Yes and now the government have got greedy and want some back??


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

The private sector haven't had to fighjt for anything, they have preseved jobs, preserved pension, but, :eek: oh shis, it;s all gone wrong. Sympathy is out of the qusetion



Please stop bringing the immigration/benefit card into this topic/discussion. Go have arant elsewhere

Again :rotfl::rotfl:the goal posts have been lowered by all you've said


If you thing that's any different in the private sector then you really do have a chip on your shoulder,


I'm really sorry BG but you simply don't understand the issues that have crucified the private sector in recent years whilst you were cuddling your pension pot

ILW

The difference is that I as a non PS worker do not see why I should have to pay for your inflated pension arrangements. Simple really.

jackyann

I cannot believe that I'm back in this thread!

For those who lost the thread along the way, I'm a nurse, 40 years paying into the NHS scheme gives me £16k a year pension as I ended up on a salary of about £32k (lots of posts earlier about this)
However ILW, you have made me think: I reckon that at a very rough estimate, to get the pension I have now, to have been paid at the same rate, I would have had to have been paid about 10% more. I have probably done that in unpaid overtime, but that's not "official".
So, if the pension provision is evened up as you wish, either the unions will fight to get us paid an extra 10%, or working nurses will be just be that much poorer. My pay has gone up & down against the average wage depending on how governments were feeling!
I said that I hadn't a clue whether I was worth the money I have taken from all you tax payers? Because if you are going to complain about public sector pensions this is what it comes down to (and btw, a "front-line" public sector worker means dealing directly with the public: nurse, teachers, paramedic, social wokers etc. as opposed to clerical / admin staff.)
So:
How much is a nurse worth in a free market?
How much is she (90% nurses are female) worth if you are in pain or haemorrhaging?
How much is she worth when she cares for someone who is dying?
Or attending a birth?
How much for routine clinical work: taking your blood pressure or prescribing for an ear infection?
How much when she's nagging (sorry - advising) you about your drinking or your diet?
How much when clearing up the clinical debris because that is no longer part of the cleaning staff's job?

You can ask the same about all public service workers.
You really can't go on as much as you have and shirk that question!

Debbie_A_3

Thank you, Jackyann. You said it much better than I could have done.

Debbie (teacher)

jem16

jackyann wrote: »

(and btw, a "front-line" public sector worker means dealing directly with the public: nurse, teachers, paramedic, social wokers etc. as opposed to clerical / admin staff.)

Ok - confession time. I am a "front-line" public sector worker and have been for 35 years. I'm a teacher.

There's been so much wrong in this thread it's unbelievable.

We've got the private sector brigade who are annoyed that they are paying for "our" pensions and who are up in arms over the demise of their final salary pensions (rightly so from that point). But yet it's much like the introduction of the comprehensive education in the 70s - let's make everybody the same, not by bringing everybody up but by bringing everybody down.

We've also got short memories - my dad finished with a 2/3rds final salary pension in the private sector. My late husband (in the private sector) always earned half as much more than me and had a 2/3rds final salary pension. My sons now earn almost as much as me having only worked for 2 years against my 35 years - yep they don't have a final salary pension but their employer pays in 11% to their scheme. Do I contribute to all of their schemes? Yes I do as I have bought their products as do millions of others.

For the public sector we have a lot of misinformation coming from people who clearly don't understand their pension scheme. Sorry toshy - but there are a lot of inaccuracies in your posts that I don't think helps. people get angry that we're up in arms over something that hasn't changed much. If we're going to try and get people to understand something, we need to understand it ourselves.

Suffice to say that the FA who sold you the AVCs was only after your money and you shouldn't have listened as your scheme barely changed in 2008. You probably also should have left your NHS pension where it was as you left on a salary of £23k and now you are on £17k - you have devalued your own pension by transferring it to the LGPS.

We need to be more aware first of what we have, pension wise, before we can stand up and fight for it. Changes do have to be made to be sustainable.

So:
How much is a nurse worth in a free market?
How much is she (90% nurses are female) worth if you are in pain or haemorrhaging?
How much is she worth when she cares for someone who is dying?
Or attending a birth?
How much for routine clinical work: taking your blood pressure or prescribing for an ear infection?
How much when she's nagging (sorry - advising) you about your drinking or your diet?
How much when clearing up the clinical debris because that is no longer part of the cleaning staff's job?

Nurses do a great job - they are absolutely essential. As are many other public sector workers.

Like every area though, both private and public sector, there is bad and good - you can't lump them all together.