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
-
the last time they published/leaked figures my contributions are planned to go up from 7.5% to 13% over the next 3 years in the NHS.
Have you looked at what those contributions would get you in the private sector?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 -
Dear Gadget mind.
Yes of course i am aware. I would also expect that if i worked for anyone decent in the private sector in such a capacity, be it Shell, Tesco, BP, RBS (a la Fred), John Lewis that they would be paying elements of pension contributions on top of salary levels as well, probably at least matching. Some of such companies may even have allowed me to retain the scheme and terms and conditions that i had originally signed up to, although some of course wouldn't. Some may also in addition to this have RPI written in the scheme rules not allowing the government to change the benefits structure overnight without even consulting members.
This view that only consider employee contribution for comparisons is a very blinkered view.
I may also even be able to utilise salary sacrafice or other tax avoidance mechanisms to reduce the cost to me as well.0 -
Don't seem to recall too many complaints from house owners when their properties were growing in value. Also don't remember the Tory opposition at the time calling for people to reign in their spending! Fact is so many of us had our snouts in the trough we didn't think about the long term consequences. The bankers and speculators were only too happy to take your money, churn it and reinvest it in never never land so long as they could take their profit! Labour got too close to the bankers and the city and is culpable for not regulating them but remember who the real deregulators are.....yes the Tories of course!
So a government should never held responsible for it's actions because the other parties may or may not have done the same thing and the people that benefited from the mistakes didn't complain? Thats the problem with borrowing, it's not the current voters that end up paying.0 -
Dear Gadget mind.
Yes of course i am aware. I would also expect that if i worked for anyone decent in the private sector in such a capacity, be it Shell, Tesco, BP, RBS (a la Fred), John Lewis that they would be paying elements of pension contributions on top of salary levels as well, probably at least matching. Some of such companies may even have allowed me to retain the scheme and terms and conditions that i had originally signed up to, although some of course wouldn't. Some may also in addition to this have RPI written in the scheme rules not allowing the government to change the benefits structure overnight without even consulting members.
This view that only consider employee contribution for comparisons is a very blinkered view.
I may also even be able to utilise salary sacrafice or other tax avoidance mechanisms to reduce the cost to me as well.
Why is it when people talk about private sector companies they always mention the huge multi-national corporations that make billions in profits. Even within these companies final salary schemes have been phased out for majority of the workforce. It is almost impossible now to find any private sector company offering these schemes.
In my experience with companies in the private sector the employer contributions tend to be much less than 10% and usually this has to be matched by employees contributions. A typical example of one company I worked for was 2% employer contribution and they would match the employees contribution up to a further 5% anything above that and you were on your own.
So please stop comparing with non-existent schemes.0 -
Why is it when people talk about private sector companies they always mention the huge multi-national corporations that make billions in profits. Even within these companies final salary schemes have been phased out for majority of the workforce. It is almost impossible now to find any private sector company offering these schemes.
In my experience with companies in the private sector the employer contributions tend to be much less than 10% and usually this has to be matched by employees contributions. A typical example of one company I worked for was 2% employer contribution and they would match the employees contribution up to a further 5% anything above that and you were on your own.
So please stop comparing with non-existent schemes.
I think many on the other side of the argument tend to quote figures of whitehall civil servant pensions and suggest all of us in public service get similar.0 -
I think many on the other side of the argument tend to quote figures of whitehall civil servant pensions and suggest all of us in public service get similar.
As I have stated before people do tend to use figures to support their arguments, but doing so doesn't make it right. But when corrected they never come back and readjust their argument.
At the end of the day using figures that you know are incorrect to base an argument on is wrong whichever side does it.0 -
I may also even be able to utilise salary sacrafice or other tax avoidance mechanisms to reduce the cost to me as well.
Salary sacrifice is pretty marginal to the employee unless the company contributes some of the saved employer's NI, which not all do, and almost none contribute 100% of it. And (of course) despite all of this, you'd still be getting a smaller pension and would be exposed to the vagaries of the stock market and annuity rates.
Things change, and one of these things is unfortunately pensions. We're all going to have to contribute more, even though we risk getting less, but the public sector will still have *much* more favourable terms than pretty much anyone with a defined contribution pension.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 -
Tesco's website proudly states that they as an employer contribute twice what the employee pays in their contribution.
My point on my statement above was in a response to a question on do i know what my 7.5% to 13% alone would buy. Yes i do but it is an equally valid point to state that this is acrude view missing any acknowldgement from the poster of an employer contribution.
The next question asked is why should i compare the NHS to major companies in terms of pension entitlements?
Well i think it is obvious from my own perspective, my hospital employers 5000 people, has a 300m turnover. The NHS has a whole spends 110bn pounds. Such companies are in my mind the right comparator. Similar to tescos, asda, john lewis organisations of these sizes recognizes the pension has a employee benefit, supporting recruitment and retention.
dshart - happy to keep coming back and i wish you would use relevant comparators. Even your scenario would show 7% employer, 5% employee scenario rather than a 0% employer contribution as i was on challenged above.
Still Tescos look like a good employer! maybe thats why they are successful!0 -
Tesco's website proudly states that they as a employer they contribute twice what the employee pays in their contribution.
I'd be gobsmacked if there wasn't a cap.
So run the figures assuming a 5% employer contribution and tell me what you get.Yes i do but it is an equally valid point to state that this is acrude view missing any acknowldgement from the poster of an employer contribution.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 -
Tesco's website proudly states that they as a employer they contribute twice what the employee pays in their contribution.
My point on my statement above was in a response to a question on do i know what my 7.5% to 13% alone would buy. Yes i do but it is an equally valid point to state that this is acrude view missing any acknowldgement from the poster of an employer contribution.
The next question asked is why should i compare the NHS to major companies in terms of pension entitlements?
Well i think it is obvious from my own perspective, my hospital employers 5000 people, has a 300m turnover. The NHS has a whole spends 110bn pounds. Such companies are in my mind the right comparator. Similar to tescos, asda, john lewis organisations of these sizes recognizes the pension has a employee benefit, supporting recruitment and retention.
dshart - happy to keep coming back and i wish you would use relevant comparators. Even your scenario would show 7% employer, 5% employee scenario rather than a 0% employer contribution as i was on challenged above.
Still Tescos look like a good employer! maybe thats why they are successful!
Yes you may compare on the size of the company but why do you still choose to compare to a final salary scheme as these in general do not exist in the private sector any more.
What you were challenged on earlier if I am correct was what sort of pension those contributions could buy you in the private sector and the answer is simply no where near as good as the public service pension. It has been stated that to get an equivalent pension a private sector worker would need to have contributions totalling about 40% of their wage (this could be made up from employers and employee contributions).
I am not sure of individual company contributions but I doubt that Tesco contributes 13% into employees pensions. (if someone has figures, then please enlighten me).0
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