Incensed again

BobQ

Koicarp wrote: »

Link doesn't work for me.

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pensions_publicservice_021111.pdf

Try this, if not past into your browser or its easily located from the home page of HM Treasury at www.hmtreasury.gov.uk

BobQ

Thicko2 wrote: »

A charitable view of the current governments current actions is they are trying to predict the future changes and implement the risk share early and plan long term.

My view the extra member contributions raised now at least from the NHS scheme are an addtional public sector defecit tax on the employees.

Again my memory is hazy but i do recall some document that predicted that for the next 5 years the NHS scheme continues to generate an in year surplus.

The affordability of public service pensions is not really an issue. The contribution increases across the public sector are a crude way of cutting public sector pay by transfering some employer pension costs to scheme members. Many will say quite right and others that there should be no empoyers contribution.

What is unfair to long term public sector workers is that "in the main" there has been a policy that the public sector does not try to pay competitive market salaries (in like for like jobs). So they pay NHS nurses less than the private sector, but do this knowing they are providing a valuable perk in the pension.

But while the private sector is encouraged by the media to be unsympathetic to public sector staff, arguments to stop/slash employer contributions need to be accompanied by an understanding that this will require a commitment to pay market salaries. Not as much of an issue now but in the good times it will be a significant additional cost.

Andy_L

[QUOTE=Old_Slaphead;48377469Are_career_average_schemes_uplifted_by_CPI_?_If_that's_the_case,_many_employees_with_a_'flat'_salary_profile_(ie_no_promotions_throughout_their_career)_may_well_be_better_off.[/QUOTE]

Historically, over the long term, salary growth is ~rpi +1%ish. Once of the reason why changing the state pension from earnings to RPI has eroded its value over the past 15-20 years

dshart

Thicko2 wrote: »

Dear Dshart

What you propose is exactly what was reached in the NHS scheme from the 2007 changes. The employer contributions in my scheme were fixed at 14%. Any increases above this, under the risk share arrangements, were due to fall on the members. It is of course currently recieving £2bn a year more in contributions than payments in the last years figures. This £2bn returns back to the treasurery to support public sector defecits. I do not think there has been a recent year, if at all, where, the NHS scheme has required additional public sector funding above employer and employee contributions. Indeed i think there are many years of benefits provided back to the treasurery.

A charitable view of the current governments current actions is they are trying to predict the future changes and implement the risk share early and plan long term.

My view the extra member contributions raised now at least from the NHS scheme are an addtional public sector defecit tax on the employees.

Again my memory is hazy but i do recall some document that predicted that for the next 5 years the NHS scheme continues to generate an in year surplus.

Well from what you all say there is nothing wrong with the systems, the government are telling lies, there in no deficit and maybe even the amount of the country debt is just fictitious.

But if the schemes are so well funded how come there is general acceptance that a private sector worker would have to save a lot more to get an equivalent pension?

dshart

BobQ wrote: »

The affordability of public service pensions is not really an issue. The contribution increases across the public sector are a crude way of cutting public sector pay by transfering some employer pension costs to scheme members. Many will say quite right and others that there should be no empoyers contribution.

What is unfair to long term public sector workers is that "in the main" there has been a policy that the public sector does not try to pay competitive market salaries (in like for like jobs). So they pay NHS nurses less than the private sector, but do this knowing they are providing a valuable perk in the pension.

But while the private sector is encouraged by the media to be unsympathetic to public sector staff, arguments to stop/slash employer contributions need to be accompanied by an understanding that this will require a commitment to pay market salaries. Not as much of an issue now but in the good times it will be a significant additional cost.

It has already being mentioned on one of these threads by someone in the health service that they could earn 30% more in the private sector, but when you look into it a bit more closely that 30% extra wages include the fact that it is short term irregular work, with no sick benefits, pension payments, holiday pay etc. The days of public sector workers not getting market rates has gone apart from maybe the top bosses in comparison to top executives in private companies. The public sector has joined the real world wage wise and now need to do the same with pensions.

xylophone

Stedwell - this appears to be the position with regard to the TPS:-


Which employees does the scheme cover?

Teachers and lecturers in some 2,422 schools, academies, further education colleges and "new" universities (the former polytechnics) and others in England and Wales.

How many sections are there?

Two.

How many active, deferred and retired members are there?

As of March 2009 there were 612,000 active members, 423,000 deferred members, and 567,000 pensioners and dependents.

What are the principal benefits?

It is a final-salary scheme, based on a 1/60th accrual rate with a normal pension age (NPA) of 65, offering a pension of two-thirds of final salary.

For those who joined before 1 January 2007, the NPA is 60 but the accrual rate is 1/80ths plus 3/80ths lump sum, offering a pension of half final salary.

How much is paid in?

Employees pay 6.4% of their salaries and employers pay 14.1%.

This was the position a year ago according to the BBC business page.

dshart

MoreOn wrote: »

Are you advocating that is the only answer to debt....

Regarding the aleged deficit... is the only answer to look at the inflows and ouflows without restructing the the system to make it more efficient?

I am in no way saying that this is the only answer to debt, I am saying that it is one of the steps to be taken.

At the end of the day balancing the books comes down to inflow and outflow. If you get more in than out then you have profit if the other way around you have deficit.

There is also restructuring going on and calls for greater efficiency, but these too are resisted because the restructuring and efficiency drives at times mean cutting the workforce.

Moby

bilbo51 wrote: »

No I haven't 'fallen' for anything. Tell me how this country pays its way.

Through the work, industry and talents of all its people and a good government tries to bring out those skills in all of us.

Its interesting to note that some posters talk a lot about money..... ie how do we pay our way, balancing the books, inflow and outflow, restructuring, balancing the workforce, greater efficiencies etc but:-

1.fail/choose not to acknowledge the wider picture of human misery through redundancy, unemployment and the associated long term repercussions. Thatcher did all this in the 80's and look what happened.....social conflict, north south divide etc. She said 'there was no such thing as society'. She displayed the mentality of the corner shop owner who values everything in terms of money/profit margins. IMO change needs to happen but it has to be consensual,.... you need to take people with you! This governments pension policy is simply not doing that!

2.Its spurious and ignorant to simply value something by its economic worth! Look how angry people feel when their loved ones have not been cared for properly by caring professionals...quite rightly so as well and this strength of feeling shows it matters! I have a close relative who because he has special needs lives in a sheltered community. The relationship I have with his carers is crucial to our lives. Those very same carers have horrendous working conditions and are paid a pittance and they do not 'produce' anything... but they provide a service that cannot be measured in monetary terms. Multiply this by millions and you'll get a better picture of how a country actually pays its way and it also shows how so many people are undervalued in our 'market' driven economy!

Andy_L

cvd wrote: »

However, if they are uplifted by the index of average earnings (as Hutton recommended), then they will be.

Donning my cynical hat...Although what index of earnings will they be using? & will they retroactively change that indexs if it's to high?

dshart

Moby wrote: »

Through the work, industry and talents of all its people and a good government tries to bring out those skills in all of us.

Its interesting to note that some posters talk a lot about money..... ie how do we pay our way, balancing the books, inflow and outflow, restructuring, balancing the workforce, greater efficiencies etc but:-

1.fail/choose not to acknowledge the wider picture of human misery through redundancy, unemployment and the associated long term repercussions. Thatcher did all this in the 80's and look what happened.....social conflict, north south divide etc. She said 'there was no such thing as society'. She displayed the mentality of the corner shop owner who values everything in terms of money/profit margins. IMO change needs to happen but it has to be consensual,.... you need to take people with you! This governments pension policy is simply not doing that!

2.Its spurious and ignorant to simply value something by its economic worth! Look how angry people feel when their loved ones have not been cared for properly by caring professionals...quite rightly so as well and this strength of feeling shows it matters! I have a close relative who because he has special needs lives in a sheltered community. The relationship I have with his carers is crucial to our lives. Those very same carers have horrendous working conditions and are paid a pittance and they do not 'produce' anything... but they provide a service that cannot be measured in monetary terms. Multiply this by millions and you'll get a better picture of how a country actually pays its way and it also shows how so many people are undervalued in our 'market' driven economy!

The thing you fail to realise is that if something is not done now about the national debt and balancing the books then this human misery will be 10 times worse when the country goes bankrupt. Why do you think the Euro zone have been pumping money into failing economies frantically trying to prop them up? It is because they realise if any of these countries have a disorderly default on their debts then there will be chaos and the knock on effect within the Euro zone including UK will have far reaching consequences.

What will happen when the country can no longer borrow money to pay wages and pensions and benefits? Money doesn't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. I have lived in third world countries and I know what the people there have to put up with where there is no social security system. In those countries they do not talk about unemployment numbers the way we do because if you don't work you don't get any money. There is no talk of minimum wage as people have to take whatever money they can or they starve. Public sector workers in those countries regularly don't have their wages paid and their pensions are a joke. The reason I mention all this is that there is now a real fear that a western nation, Greece, may default and become no better off than a third world nation. This will have a knock on effect and several other nations are likely to follow suit.