Hands off my pension

olly300

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm sorry but it is neither a debatable point nor a 'snobby attitude'. One can do the job after leaving school at 16 with an NVQ level 2, and the other needs to spend four years at University and finish with a post graduate qualification.

I agree that caring professions are under rewarded but we live in a capitalist society and the way worth is recognised here is through money.

Teachers in the private sector don't necessarily need formal teaching qualifications.

tartanterra

ruggedtoast wrote: »

OK lets get one thing straight. I deserve my pension, I have worked for it, I pay into it, and I'm not getting anything you private sector bozos wouldnt have got if you had applied to work in the Public Sector three or four years ago.

But you didnt want to do that then did you? Oh no, when jobs were plentiful it was all "Haha you public sector losers no one with a brain or any ambition would work for that salary."

Well one banking crisis and a recession later and suddenly you all want a piece of the pie you wouldnt have tucked into if it were on special offer at Morrisions before. And if you cant have it you just want to smash the pie and tread it into the mud. Well you cant because we all have contracts and we wont take your bins away if you annoy us.

And anyway as far as I can see most people who work for the private sector do jobs like working in Greggs or Carphonewarehouse so its not surprising you arent going to retire to a yacht in the bahamas is it.

:mad:

On the basis of your reprehensible and shabby "argument", I can only say that if you are typical of public sector employees, then bring on the cuts.

Andy_L

zappahey wrote: »

Some civil servants pay into schemes. Many are non-contributory.

Apart from the Millitary (who have a formal abatement applied to their salary before pay levels are decided - currently 6%ish), I think judges and pre 1987ish Civil Servants (who have to pay a "widows pension contribution" which, under the "duck test" is a pensions contribution) I'm unaware of any non-contributory schemes so its actually very few, not many, that are non-contributory

Andy_L

ILW wrote: »

Or to rephrase, in financial terms, civil servants are net tax receivers.

Except that they are doing work for that payment so the big question is is their total renumeration (ie pay + pension) appropriate for the work they do?

lemonjelly

Apparently, the cost burden for the taxpayer of public sector pensions is too excessive.

£35 billion is the annual cost to the taxpayer for public sector pensions.

According to figures from 2007/08 the cost of private sector pensions to the taxpayer was £37.6 billion.

According to the Office of Budget Responsibility the cost of public sector pensions to the taxpayer in 2011/12 will be £27.1 billion.

[stereotype on] Let's screw all those lazy !!!!ers in the private sector who are a drain on our resources and have caused the economic crisis. [stereotype off]

There is a meeting next week between the government and unions. I think the government position may have changed.

Old_Slaphead

lemonjelly wrote: »

£35 billion is the annual cost to the taxpayer for public sector pensions.

According to figures from 2007/08 the cost of private sector pensions to the taxpayer was £37.6 billion.

According to the Office of Budget Responsibility the cost of public sector pensions to the taxpayer in 2011/12 will be £27.1 billion.

[stereotype on] Let's screw all those lazy !!!!ers in the private sector who are a drain on our resources and have caused the economic crisis. [stereotype off]

Let's get a couple of points clear....

a) There's 3x the number of private sector workers than public so the cost per person is significantly less.

b) Most of the cost of the private sector is tax relief. EXACTLY the same tax relief is available to public sector workers.

c) The vast majority of the private sector cost pertains to the wealthy members of society. The Labour party vastly increased the annual tax relief on pension contributions to over £200,000 pa. The ConDems have reduced this to £50k - thereby significantly reducing the cost.

Much of the private sector cost related to massive contributions made by the very wealthy and Gordon Brown initiated this.

lemonjelly

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Let's get a couple of points clear....

a) There's 3x the number of private sector workers than public so the cost per person is significantly less.

b) Most of the cost of the private sector is tax relief. EXACTLY the same tax relief is available to public sector workers.

c) The vast majority of the private sector cost pertains to the wealthy members of society. The Labour party vastly increased the annual tax relief on pension contributions to over £200,000 pa. The ConDems have reduced this to £50k - thereby significantly reducing the cost.

Much of the private sector cost related to massive contributions made by the very wealthy and Gordon Brown initiated this.

Lets just get 1 point clear. If public sector pensions are unaffordable, why have the government not been able to make their case?

Old_Slaphead

lemonjelly wrote: »

Lets just get 1 point clear. If public sector pensions are unaffordable, why have the government not been able to make their case?

Basically because they're aweful on presentation.

Just because something is affordable it doesn't automatically follow that it should be done. It's affordable to give all civil servants a £10,000 bonus so should they ?

Even with the suggested changes, public sector pensions will still be more than generous compared to what's available to the rest of the workforce (who ultimately pick up most of the tab). Should we continue to allow the relatively well paid public sector workforce access to premium, heavily subsidised pensions at the expense of other more needy folk?

ruggedtoast

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Basically because they're aweful on presentation.

Just because something is affordable it doesn't automatically follow that it should be done. It's affordable to give all civil servants a £10,000 bonus so should they ?

Even with the suggested changes, public sector pensions will still be more than generous compared to what's available to the rest of the workforce (who ultimately pick up most of the tab). Should we continue to allow the relatively well paid public sector workforce access to premium pensions at the expense of other more needy folk?

I am not a 'needy folk'. I am a qualified experienced professional and if you (the tax payer) dont pay me the going rate to work for you, I wont. I will come and find another job. What if that job is yours?

You are paying me to leave you alone.

Old_Slaphead

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am not a 'needy folk'. I am a qualified experienced professional and if you (the tax payer) dont pay me the going rate to work for you, I wont. I will come and find another job. What if that job is yours?

You are paying me to leave you alone.

I think you should be paid "the going rate". Given what's happened to public sector salary & pension packages over the last decade that will probably mean a reduction for many.