Public sector wellcome to the real world

jackyann

I put "nurses" because that is what I know about - could apply to any public sector worker.
Of course there are some poor nurses, teachers, fire-fighters etc. but there are systems for weeding them out, and that must be separate from pay deals.
Jem - you are correct in saying that a lot of people don't understand their schemes - I signed on the dotted line aged 18 and probably thought about it twice until I turned 50. The money went out with all my other stoppages so I never figured in to any budget (which is one of the things that annoys others who have had to consider what to put in)
However, in the end, we have to consider what our public sector workers are worth.
Friends in the private sector over the years have had packages that include moving expenses, gym / golf club membership, use of various facilities, house rental paid, etc.etc. When their employers were considering their "worth" they looked at the whole package.
I simply suggest that any discussion of public sector pensions should consider the whole context, and certainly not berate us personally ( as a tiny number have)

cyclonebri1

I hope I'm not guilty of berating the Public Service but the whole point is that the level of pension cost in that sector has become unsustainable, have a look around at the mess WE are all in. :eek:

Private sector being a more immediate sector, ie, profit based, did the sums earlier and took action 1st. It now seems to be catch up time for you guys and obviously you don't like it, I didn't when it affected me.

But exactly the same methods are being applied as were applied to the private sector, ie, earned pension is protected, only future rates will change.

Yes of course it would be nice to level things up rather than down, but anyone that thinks that's going to happen in this climate is naive to say the least.

I know this topic has drifted in and out of focus but the bottom line is we have all been shafted with a sharp stick and none of us like it.

jem16

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I hope I'm not guilty of berating the Public Service but the whole point is that the level of pension cost in that sector has become unsustainable, have a look around at the mess WE are all in. :eek:

Yes we are all in a mess. Who caused it though? Mostly greed in some areas of the private sector.

However I agree that pensions need to be reformed and at the moment I have no problems with Hutton's proposals.

Private sector being a more immediate sector, ie, profit based, did the sums earlier and took action 1st. It now seems to be catch up time for you guys and obviously you don't like it, I didn't when it affected me.

Naturally not. It's seen as removing the one "perk" of being a public sector worker. We don't have bonuses, medical insurance etc to remove - and yes I know many in the private sector don't have either but many do.

But exactly the same methods are being applied as were applied to the private sector, ie, earned pension is protected, only future rates will change.

One change is being applied retrospectively and that is RPI to CPI but that's not only for public sector. It's the main one I take issue with.

Yes of course it would be nice to level things up rather than down, but anyone that thinks that's going to happen in this climate is naive to say the least.

I didn't say I expected it to happen. What I don't think should happen is the "It happened to us so let's make sure it happens to them brigade".

Mind you if levelling down means that I can get some of the perks my sons get in the private sector now, maybe I should go for it.

matthew74

Just seen the rise in contributions and the actual contributions that some public sector workers will have to pay. Totally staggered. To get the same sort of level of pension I am paying in 36% of my salary. Unbelievable!

cyclonebri1

jem16 wrote: »

Yes we are all in a mess. Who caused it though? Mostly greed in some areas of the private sector.

Might just have been thatcher in the "spend spend spend" days,

browniej

matthew74 wrote: »

To get the same sort of level of pension I am paying in 36% of my salary. Unbelievable!

Will you have been paying 36% over the full 40 years or are you paying that much to catch up on earlier missed opportunities?

Doesn't really tell us much without the detail.

Zelazny

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Might just have been thatcher in the "spend spend spend" days,

Yeah, it was Thatcher's fault. Nothing at all to do with the fact that public spending has risen from 39.9% of GDP when Labour took over in 1997 to 48.1% of GDP in the run up to the last election (source: https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf).

matthew74

brownie j, I will pay 36% from age 30 until I can afford to retire on it, when that is who knows 60-65-90?

browniej

matthew74 wrote: »

brownie j, I will pay 36% from age 30 until I can afford to retire on it, when that is who knows 60-65-90?

Thanks. Those missing 10 years from age 20 to 30 certainly make a big difference though.

No employer contributions?

matthew74

Brownie, yes those first years do (would have made) make a huge difference. My employer puts in 12.6%. And of course it all depends on how my funds perform :eek: