Incensed again

Andy_L

sprite1508 wrote: »

And i think youll find 50% off ALL our council tax go towards pensions not `just yours`,

This figure, despite constant repitition by the Tax payers Alliance, is not true. it would only be even close to true if council tax was the sole source of council funding

Old_Slaphead

Andy_L wrote: »

This figure, despite constant repitition by the Tax payers Alliance, is not true. it would only be even close to true if council tax was the sole source of council funding

The actual figure not 50% but closer to 15% - contributed via council tax, national tax receipts (ie revenue support grant) and business rates - in very roughly equal proportions

spike9

lidlest wrote: »

Under the old pension scheme (2007) a teacher on £35k would have to work for about 57 years to get a £25000 pension (good luck with that lol).

Under the new scheme a teacher would have to work 44 years... slightly more reasonable i hear you say. Good luck having all those grannys in the classroom.

Yes we have a good pension scheme but please don't forget that the pension scheme was already overhauled to make it sustainable (i.e it pays for itself). The government has not put money paid by teachers into a pension plan it has just sucked it up, and when there was a surplus you didn't see them offering to give it back.

Please use some common sense and realise that this public Vs private conflict that the govt has deftly set in motion is nothing but a way to get us to stop looking at where the big jobs are wasting money, where the banks are bankrupting us and where little people scream at each other instead of at the people really taking the pi$$.

Well said indeed !

2sides2everystory

lidlest wrote: »

Please use some common sense and realise that this public Vs private conflict that the govt has deftly set in motion is nothing but a way to get us to stop looking at where the big jobs are wasting money, where the banks are bankrupting us and where little people scream at each other instead of at the people really taking the pi$$.

Big jobs? Makes me wonder about Air Traffic Controllers again ... further musings from that early retired ATCO and his mates:

Early retired ATCO: No2 son is at (deleted) and said he got 5.5% this year, better than our 5.2%!

I make him buy all the beer when we meet, hee heee!
ERATCO's mate: He must be in senior management, then.

Is he over 21?
ERATCO: No, he's a chip off the old block - not interested in promotion at all, just a humble ATCO2.

Thinking about it - not very humble at all!

I'm sure he said 5.5% plus maybe 3.5% next January, certainly over £100k now

There's two worlds I think.

Andy_L

sammyjammy wrote: »

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

Depnds when they joined. The older scheme is 1/80ths with a x3 lump sum, the newer scheme is 1/60ths but with no lump sum. They are broadly comparable, 1/60ths has become slightly better with incrleasing longevity, although since most people give up some of that 1/60ths pension for lump sum they differences are minior.
Thje older schem does however win out with a retiremnt age of 60 vs 65 for the newer one

The_Angry_Jock

Moby wrote: »

By the way up until the world crash in 2008 the economic record of Labour was actually very good.....

If that was true then this thread wouldn't exist.

snowcat53

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.

A final salary pension scheme is based on your final salary so this would be irrelevant – the hypothetical teacher would still get 40/80*37k =18,500 pa as pension at 60 under the 80ths scheme, plus 3 times that as lump sum (assuming i have the scheme details right). Under the proposals this would change to 'career average' based on 60ths (not 80ths), so would benefit those who stay in the ranks and don’t get big promotions towards the end of their career (these last will be hardest hit by the change).

I have been teaching for 24 years and I now earn 37000. My latest predicted pension was 9K and not 25k a year.

The predicted figure doesn't seem to make sense, unless you have been part time for some or all of these years.

I have paid a lot of money into my pension.
….
I refuse to have my money taken away from me by the government

Not enough to fund what you will get though (even with the changes). And noone is taking ‘your’ money away from you, just saying 'sorry it can’t buy you as much pension in the future.'

molerat

This thread shows how out of touch with reality many public sector workers and their unions are. They seem to think either they pay all their pension costs or that any extra falls off the money tree. We are not talking about coming down to the lowest denominator or the health of the schemes today but about providing funding to a level that is sustainable and affordable with the general taxpayer not footing the whole bill going forward. My very good and previously well funded private sector final salary pension scheme is now, due to longevity and poor investment returns, in projected deficit by £600M which is having to be made up by the employer combined with changes to the rules including increased early retirement reductions. This is the reality which has to be shared by all.

(To show that my views are not totally one sided over 50% of my working life has been public sector pensioned)

snowcat53

I am also a public sector worker but do recognise things have to change.

dshart

I just cannot understand how public sector workers feel their pensions are fully funded by their contributions when you look at the figures being banded around about the pensions. I know people will dispute the figures and we all know how figures can be manipulated to argue your case but whatever figures you use ignoring what the final salary was and compare the equivalent pot a private sector worker would have to have to obtain the equivalent pension there is just no comparison and the public sector worker is much better off.

figures being quoted such as a pension of £11900 requiring a pension pot of £325000 (or an annual sum to build pot of £4380), now for someone on £37000 a year that is almost 12% of salary. How many public sector workers are contributing that much of there salary (I do understand that there are also employer contributions). Bearing in mind the figures I quote above were stated as a pension for someone earning £14600, but I have compared that to what would need to be contributed by someone on a higher salary.

I also note that a lot of the argument on this forum seems to mention teachers, but out of all the public sector workers they usually contribute a greater percentage of their wage to their pensions, so I can see some reason for their grievance. Some public sector workers contribute as little as 1.5% of their wage towards their pension with the balance being made up by employers contributions. These people seem to be relatively quiet on the forum, maybe they are just keeping their heads down because they know what a good deal they are on.

People also mention the "race to the bottom" and mention how private sector workers should support them and fight for better pension provision for themselves, but how are we supposed to do that? we do not have the power to hold the country to ransom by calling national strikes. I work in the oil and gas industry and if anyone in that industry tried to get an organised strike together to shut down oil and gas supply in the country they would soon find themselves under arrest. Will the public sector workers go on strike for fair pensions for all? I doubt it very much. When I have to take time off work or pay for childcare costs when the teachers strike takes place this month who will compensate me?

I agree everyone should be able to have a comfortable retirement but everyone should realise that this comes at a price and that price may be contributing more and working longer, but most of all it should be a level playing field for both wages and pensions between the public and private sector.