We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Unions and Pensions
Comments
-
All created on the back of the house price boom, uncontrolled personal debt and massive government overspending. Well done Labour, they truely ended boom and bust...with the mother of all boom and busts.
It must have been as it took down Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Lehman Brothers etc etc. A remarkable achievement if that's what they did.
Actually UK national debt as a % of GDP was less than when Labour took over right up to when the banks started to fail following the collapse of the world credit market. See here for a graph.0 -
It must have been as it took down Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Lehman Brothers etc etc. A remarkable achievement if that's what they did.
Actually UK national debt as a % of GDP was less than when Labour took over right up to when the banks started to fail following the collapse of the world credit market. See here for a graph.
Different economic cycles, the point is we ended up with a very high deficit because Labour didn't follow it's golden rule and continued to overspend. Instead we ended up with the biggest deficits of any of the G20.0 -
All created on the back of the house price boom, uncontrolled personal debt and massive government overspending. Well done Labour, they truely ended boom and bust...with the mother of all boom and busts.
Yes, and along the way, they managed to sell loads of our gold at the bottom of the market and raid private pensions to the tune of £5bn per annum.
Sweet.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Yes, and along the way, they managed to sell loads of our gold at the bottom of the market and raid private pensions to the tune of £5bn per annum.
Sweet.
The figures quoted for deficit in public service pensions for 2009/2010 year was around £3.1bn so with the £5bn raided from private pensions they covered that and had change left over. Yet when people from the private sector complain we are just being spiteful.0 -
Devon_Sailor wrote: »
My point remains when will the armed forces recieve a proposal to raise their contribution level from 0% to something like 3.2% to be in line with the rest of the public sector.
It is this scheme which is generating the big headline figures on public section pension defecits in year. Not the NHS, LGPS or teachers.
The abatemnt that Thicko2 talks of is based on how much better than a typical pension the Armed Forces Pension is. As the rest of public sector pensions get worse then this abatement will, semi-automatically, increase0 -
RobertoMoir wrote: »I'm a unison member where I work (and I think there still is a need for unions in the public sector) but I really do think they're out of touch with the real world - especially when they rejected the revised pensions offer from the govt, which I thought was a very reasonable compromise.
If the union really are advising members to leave a good company pension scheme then I somewhat doubt that whoever came up with that one was thinking about "how he can benefit others that day!". In fact, I'd love to know just what they *were* thinking.
Roberto as a Unison member who clearly takes an interest in what your Union does even if you do not agree with it, how come you have not noticed these people campaigning for members to leave the pension scheme?
I am one of the doubters that this is happening, mainly because its a barking idea that the members would be better off doing it. I was talking to a couple of Unison members yesterday and they both said that they had not heard any reps say anything like this.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
£5bn raided from private pensions
In fact, Lawson and Lamont together took more then Brown from private pensions. (figures from Institute of Actuaries).
The tribal nature of British politics ensures there is no hope of any good government in this country.0 -
Roberto as a Unison member who clearly takes an interest in what your Union does even if you do not agree with it, how come you have not noticed these people campaigning for members to leave the pension scheme?
Well that's just it, I don't take that much of an interest in union business. In my job, its a good idea to have the protection of a union for a number of reasons and I regard myself as simply 'buying' those services rather than being involved in the union as such. I certainly don't attend or pay any attention to any meetings they may hold to discuss pensions in detail, because I know just enough about the subject to know that if I need advice, i don't need to speak to someone else who might well know little more than I do.
I really can't comment on what does or does not go on at meetings I haven't attended.If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything0 -
My point remains when will the armed forces recieve a proposal to raise their contribution level from 0% to something like 3.2% to be in line with the rest of the public sector.
It is this scheme which is generating the big headline figures on public section pension defecits in year. Not the NHS, LGPS or teachers.
And my point, which I apologise for if not expressed clearly, was that in essence armed forces already get paid 6-7% less than the Independent Pay Review Board suggest that they should be for the job that they carry out, to help cover pension costs. Raising that by another 3.2% will take individual contribution therefore up above the 10% level which, with all due respect, would have teachers, nurses and firefighters on the streets.
I also dont see any of the professions noted in your response already in the process of reducing in size by 16% (RN), 12% (RAF) or 8% (Army), with further significant reductions in size all but guaranteed by 2015.
I think what you will find happening is a restructuring of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which will fall into line with the general trend towards a less generous career average scheme, smaller lump sum upon retirement and, yes, probably a greater contribution, although possibly not as high as the 3.2% you are asking for. But that is just a guess - who knows.
In terms of timeline, I imagine they will get the current three redundancy batches out of the way, have a bit of a look at what the future structure of the forces actually looks like and then adjust the pension arrangements to match. There seems to me little point in carrying out sweeping and expensive pension alterations now, and finding out in two years time that they are completely out of synch with the structure that you are left with, and have to go through the process again.
So, that is the long answer to your question. The short answer, in my humble opinion, is about 2 years.
D_S0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards