New pension proposals

chucknorris

snowcat53 wrote: »

Also as a lecturer you presumably are in USS which is not a public sector scheme affected by these proposals

According to the BBC these proposals also affect those in the teachers pension too:

Under the proposals, about one million public sector workers - including teachers, civil servants and local government workers - who are due to retire in the 10 years from 1 April 2012 will now not work any longer and they will keep their existing final-salary schemes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15549321

snowcat53

USS is completely different from the Teachers scheme and is funded with a proper pot. Which are you in?

Dr_Wu

chucknorris wrote: »

I know but I (obviously incorrectly based on your response) assumed that the NHS pension would be comparable to the teachers pension in that most have a retirement age of 60 but recent starters have a retirement age of 65.

No, you're quite right, members of the 2008 section of the NHS scheme have a normal retirement age of 65.

I think some of the quotes are misleading because they talk about the significance of being over 50 in April 2022. It would be more accurate/helpful to talk about those who are within 10 years of existing retirement age for their scheme in April 2022.

chucknorris

snowcat53 wrote: »

USS is completely different from the Teachers scheme and is funded with a proper pot. Which are you in?

The teachers pension fund

chucknorris

Dr_Wu wrote: »

No, you're quite right, members of the 2008 section of the NHS scheme have a normal retirement age of 65.

I think some of the quotes are misleading because they talk about the significance of being over 50 in April 2022. It would be more accurate/helpful to talk about those who are within 10 years of existing retirement age for their scheme in April 2022.

Thanks, I feared that was the case but was hoping for a different answer.

dshart

snowcat53 wrote: »

I sent off my no vote to my uniion also, but they are clearly spoling for a fight with the Govt, whatever the offer's merits. I am not one of those who believes Unions are obsolete - they can be a fanatastic source of support and help, and have done sterling service in improving working lives. But too many of our union leaders want to strut on the political stage.

You hit the nail on the head there, to the unions the pensions debate is just the perfect excuse they need to flex their muscles. They have a political agenda which has nothing to do with workers rights and pensions.

NAR

dshart wrote: »

They have a political agenda which has nothing to do with workers rights and pensions.

The agenda is that the Government are dictating and trying to impose solutions on the Unions and the workers.
Quite rightly the Unions are wanting to flex their muscles and force the Government going back to negotiating deals, not imposing them Nothing wrong with that stance in my book, what about you?

dshart

NAR wrote: »

The agenda is that the Government are dictating and trying to impose solutions on the Unions and the workers.
Quite rightly the Unions are wanting to flex their muscles and force the Government going back to negotiating deals, not imposing them Nothing wrong with that stance in my book, what about you?

And what solutions are the unions proposing? Public sector pensions are unaffordable, we cannot keep burying our head in the sand and pretend that it will be okay. Even with the government cutbacks the amount of debt carried by the country is still growing. Shall we just give in to everyone's demands till the country goes bust and no one is left with anything.

There is nothing wrong with negotiating, but they must accept the fact that something needs to change as the pensions are not affordable. Going on strike is only an attempt to hold the country to ransom and it will not make any difference to the inevitable change that must happen if the country is not to go bust.

atush

NAR wrote: »

The agenda is that the Government are dictating and trying to impose solutions on the Unions and the workers.
Quite rightly the Unions are wanting to flex their muscles and force the Government going back to negotiating deals, not imposing them Nothing wrong with that stance in my book, what about you?

The govt are trying to dig us out of Labour's Fun Big Black Hole. That Labour made.

Quite wrongly the Unions are mis-perceiving ther real world status and the mind set of the populace as a whole. And trying to 'flex their muscles' to get us and their members to blame the current govt for labour's past mistakes (supported by their unions). They are more likely to get themselves 'flexed' down the nearest Ubend.

Everything wrong with that/your stance, as no where in the real world where I live that the Union's 'never never' land can actually exist.

More people retiring, more living longer, no govt funds available, world markets tumbling, govt pensions too expensive going forwards.

Moby

jamesd wrote: »

It may work as divide and rule but it's also a sign that they learned something and are trying to treat those with less planning time better than originally planned IMO

Yes but they should have tapered the cut off point more gradually!

In any case the true divide and rule issue here isn't between the groups of union members, it's between the tax payers who are doing much of the funding of the pensions and the ones receiving them. Both need a fair deal and keeping the original terms for a longer life expectancy isn't fair for the tax payer part of the group.

People keep trotting out this line but public sector workers are also taxpayers. Everyone pays for everyone else’s pension. Companies with occupational pension provision for their employees include pension costs when pricing their goods and services. All taxpayers pay for the cost of inadequate pension saving (increasingly prevalent in the private sector) through the tax and national insurance spent on increased take up of state benefits, NHS and council care services.

If you do want the original terms, try working out how to reduce life expectancy by five years or so for public sector employees to get them back to the original deal terms. That's daft but is what it would take to get there. Instead what would happen is that health care funding for all of the population would be cut to fund the pensions and society as a whole would suffer a reduced or less increased life expectancy. It's not just about pensions, even if that is the main subject.

Another myth you've bought from this Government. The costs of all defined benefit schemes fluctuate as do the benefits of defined contribution schemes. My scheme the LGPS is in a better position than most other schemes as it can and should plan its funding over a longer period, making it substantively less vulnerable to short term fluctuations. Year on year, the LGPS takes £billions more in contributions and investment returns than it pays out in benefits. Its ridiculous to claim funding it will have an impact on health care policy!