Incensed again

stedwell

bigfreddiel wrote: »

well cyclonebri1 if you don't like your "tight assed company" why don't you get a job in the public sector?

cheers

fj

What teach 30 challenging Year 11's until you are 66. I don't think so!

sammyjammy

afc80 wrote: »

Your 9,000 predicted pension is you pension as at the end of the last financial year and is what you what get, yearly increases aside if you left your job at that point.

If you work till retirement you will have a pension comparable to 2 thirds of your salary in your last year of work (under the current arrangements)
.

Wrong, teachers pensions are based on 1/80th not 1/60th

stedwell

sammyjammy wrote: »

Wrong, teachers pensions are based on 1/80th not 1/60th

Very true!

julieq

stedwell wrote: »

Going back to the original post - no teacher earns £37k for 40 years that is impossible as it is the top end of pay scale. I have been teaching for 24 years and I now earn 37000. My latest predicted pension was 9K and not 25k a year. It is not likely to get much better. Also this is not about a private v public argument. That is exactly what the government wants us to do -fight amongst ourselves. This is about the fact that the government have refused to carry out the latest review of teacher pensions - and why? Well they are not under performing. In fact they are on course and need no adjusting. The unions are presently trying to sue the government as they have acted illegally by not carrying out our review. I have paid a lot of money into my pension although you would think it came free if you believe the media. I refuse to have my money taken away from me by the government to pay for the debt this country is in. That has nothing to do with me or my pension.

You are utterly and catastrophically wrong about both the value of your pension and the amount you would have to put into it if you were in a private sector defined contribution scheme and wanted the same benefits. On the new deal being offered you have something that most private sector workers would snap your hand off to get. It really genuinely isn't possible to generate the benefits you get from your contributions without someone else contributing massive subsidies, and that someone is the private sector.

This is what frustrates me about the level of this debate and the way the unions have lied to their members about the sustainability of the scheme and who pays for it. It's pure fantasy to claim that the scheme would have been sustainable had the government not appropriated contributions: if that were true all defined benefit schemes would be sustainable. They're not.

And as for not wanting to pay more towards debt, well whose debt do you think it is exactly? It's COLLECTIVE debt owed by taxpayers because of decisions their governments have taken, which include subsidising massively public sector pensions. You could try to tax the private sector more, but every pound taken in tax on profits is a pound not available to pay private pensions. Nice of you to decide you don't want to help pay for the debt you helped create. And spare me the guff about "bankers stealing from us", the borrowing deficit is about borrowing with incorrect assumptions on whether boom and bust has been abolished, not from evil banks.

I do think many in the public sector would benefit from a spell in the private sector. Life is not all easy free money with someone else to pick up the tab. We in the private sector are squeezed from all sides, and if we generate profit we're vilified as fat cats while other people spend our money for us.

julieq

stedwell wrote: »

My husband is 52. He has taught for 30 years. His prediction last year was 11K You are telling me that in just 13 years (when he is 65) his pension will be double? I don't think so. In fact the value of our pension will be 15% less due to the lower CPI indexation. Why does there have to be this feeling that we have to kick anyone who is standing up for their rights? There seems to be the feeling that if I can't have it then neither will you. Government must be laughing their socks off we play straight into their hands with all this bickering when as workers we should be supporting each other.

No, sorry. Very bluntly to get your benefits you are taking from the private sector. You have to be prepared to pay more towards YOUR OWN retirement so that the private sector can get a fair crack of the whip.

And these are not rights, they are privileges. You have a good pension for largely historical reasons, and the financial basis by which that is possible has disappeared as the rest of the world becomes more prosperous.

taktikback

This is such a pointless debate - The whole thing hinges around what is "affordable". Well,seems to me that the country chooses what is "affordable" - high levels of debt racked up to pay for a systemic failure in banking was affordable but for some reason (for example) saving £900M per year for the LGPS has to be done because continuing to contribute that is "unaffordable" - but bombing the c*ap out of Libya was a necessity so that is affordable etc...

All this stuff about fairness is a red herring. Private vs public argument - you choose where you work and you sign up to what is being offered. In this case, for public pensions - which are top notch let's be fair - are now proposed to be scaled back. Let's not cloud this with "fairness". Public pensions are a valuable part of the salary package. Scaling them back is a pay cut within the current contract -which ever way you look at it. Now whether you strike or don't strike is up to the views of those post holders, but we shouldn't be surprised that people are baulking at having their pay effectively cut. That would be the same in the private sector although the private sector has long appreciated that market forces rule the world and so striking would be largely pointless.

And lastly -the latest pension offer from the government pretty much puts things back where they were, with the exception of a couple of extra percent contribution from the employee - not that big a deal. It beats me why the government wanted to provoke a strike only to largely reverse their position. Most staff balloted are also largely clueless about what the impact of the proposed changes really are because they don't understand the complexities of pensions. All they know is that someone wants to put their contributions up. I don't get it -it's all been so badly handled. The unions will accept the offer at the last minute - why wouldn't they. The elephant in the room is private pensions which are such bad investments they are almost irrelevant. If it wasn't for my employers contribution of 4% , I wouldn't bother paying the minimum employee contribution of 2%. At least the sum total of both over the next 10 or 15 years will fund my beer money come retirement. Good job I've already got 16 years in a preserved final salary pension -otherwise it would be game over.

stedwell

The problem with private pensions lies with the fact that both the labour and tory governments have bled them dry and mismanaged them with holiday payments and other such fads when times were good. Your arguments should lie with the politicians and not public sector workers.

Old_Slaphead

Koicarp wrote: »

Can you "show your working" on the taxpayer's £4?

I believe that the only publically funded scheme is the LGPS.

Employee contributions average around 5%.

Employer contributions vary between 16-20% (taken from a sample of several sets of published accounts).

The scheme is still only funded to around 83% of liabilities. therefore employers/taxpayer will have to contribute even more.

dshart

stedwell wrote: »

My husband is 52. He has taught for 30 years. His prediction last year was 11K You are telling me that in just 13 years (when he is 65) his pension will be double? I don't think so. In fact the value of our pension will be 15% less due to the lower CPI indexation. Why does there have to be this feeling that we have to kick anyone who is standing up for their rights? There seems to be the feeling that if I can't have it then neither will you. Government must be laughing their socks off we play straight into their hands with all this bickering when as workers we should be supporting each other.

You mention supporting each other but where was the support for private sector workers when their pension pots were raided by Gordon Brown?

As I have said the argument I have is not whether you are better or worse off under the new proposals, but that in either case you are better of than a private sector worker on a similar salary if you both made the same contributions.

The other point is that the unions will call a strike to support your position knowing if effective it will paralyze the country, what about all the private sector workers that will lose money by having to take time off work to look after kids who are not in schools or have to pay for alternative arrangements. This is what gives the public sector unions power, the effect they have on the general public. If it was a private sector worker going on strike in majority of cases it has no effect on others so no one cares.

So please tell me how you are supporting the private sector workers to get a better pension, or even on as good as what you will be on after the changes?

afc80

julieq wrote: »

You are utterly and catastrophically wrong about both the value of your pension and the amount you would have to put into it if you were in a private sector defined contribution scheme and wanted the same benefits. On the new deal being offered you have something that most private sector workers would snap your hand off to get. It really genuinely isn't possible to generate the benefits you get from your contributions without someone else contributing massive subsidies, and that someone is the private sector.

This is what frustrates me about the level of this debate and the way the unions have lied to their members about the sustainability of the scheme and who pays for it. It's pure fantasy to claim that the scheme would have been sustainable had the government not appropriated contributions: if that were true all defined benefit schemes would be sustainable. They're not.

And as for not wanting to pay more towards debt, well whose debt do you think it is exactly? It's COLLECTIVE debt owed by taxpayers because of decisions their governments have taken, which include subsidising massively public sector pensions. You could try to tax the private sector more, but every pound taken in tax on profits is a pound not available to pay private pensions. Nice of you to decide you don't want to help pay for the debt you helped create. And spare me the guff about "bankers stealing from us", the borrowing deficit is about borrowing with incorrect assumptions on whether boom and bust has been abolished, not from evil banks.

I do think many in the public sector would benefit from a spell in the private sector. Life is not all easy free money with someone else to pick up the tab. We in the private sector are squeezed from all sides, and if we generate profit we're vilified as fat cats while other people spend our money for us.

My brother works for Stenna Drilling in Aberdeen, in the office, and it is one big party, lots of freebies, trips abroad on the company credit card, Derren Brown appeared at the last Chritsmas party, total cost of the party , 300 grand.

They have a private gym on site, free again, and a chef is also on site 24/7.

They also get a bonus in July and one in December which equates to 10 per cent of their annual salary, they also have a final salary pension.

It is easy money where my brother works.

Wonder if he can get me a job?.