Fire Brigade pension or private pension

mulronie

caledonia84 wrote: »

The new proposals are growing more and more unreasonable for us and people leaving the scheme on mass is a real possibility.

That would be insane.

caledonia84 wrote: »

As the government plan to implement a cost ceiling on what they contribute then the remaining members will have to contribute more to cover the cost of the firefighters all ready retired, the scheme will collapse surely? it doesn't take a large % to go to make the scheme unviable thus leaving the FRS wide open to privatisation.

The scheme CAN NOT collapse. The liabilities of the scheme are liabilities of the UK government. The defined benefits as they build up will be paid out in accordance with the scheme rules; if the scheme ends up with a structural deficit, HM Taxpayer will cough up. End of story.

caledonia84 wrote: »

As mentioned above just looking for your views on this and if it seams possible that the government would actually want the scheme to collapse to pave the way for someone like assetco G4S or Biffa?

The scheme can't collapse unless the British Goverment collapses first. The end.

caledonia84 wrote: »

Another factor is how they are treating NFPS and FPS very differently and unfairly

They are treating you differently because you are in different schemes. It might be unfair but its tough cookies; most private employers killed their final salary schemes over the last decade; now the public sector is doing it. Welcome to the club. Maybe you don't find is a consolation, but most people (myself included) would bite their employers' hand off if they were offered the NFPS pension deal.

caledonia84 wrote: »

If they implement this cost ceiling then the usual argument of "its still better than anyone elses!" is out the window? Again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong; the idea of their being a cost ceiling is fundamentally flawed because the liabilities of the scheme are underwritten by the state.

Old_Slaphead

mulronie wrote: »

You are wrong; the idea of their being a cost ceiling is fundamentally flawed because the liabilities of the scheme are underwritten by the state.

ie Future generations of taxpayers

caledonia84

This is what Im trying to establish, I assumed that since they have allready proposed these changes and plan to just tear up our old pension contracts and give us new ones that they could do what they liked?

We've been told that under the new deal with the cost ceiling if people leave the svheme then it will be us left in the scheme who will be paying for its upkeep not the government?

Again if they can just bring in new laws and make changel to legal documents then whats stopping them doing what they want?

Not on here to argue, but to try and see this from a different perspective from what we hear at the station.

caledonia84

In addition
The government wants firefighters to work operationally until they are 60, provided of course they can reach a fitness level of 47 V02 max. The national entry standard is 42. Failure to reach this level of fitness will result in two choices:
1. Leave early and sacrifice 5% of your pension for every year until you are 60.
2. Be dismissed on capability grounds and not receive a wage or pension until you reach state pension age, currently 67 but this could rise.

A government report has identified that 85% will not be able to reach this level of fitness at that age.

jamesd

caledonia84 wrote: »

Again if they can just bring in new laws and make changel to legal documents then whats stopping them doing what they want?

Tradition. It's rather unlikely that a UK government will declare that everyone in the job must now work for nothing other than food, water, a tent on or near the fire service property and is barred from leaving the job. But unlikely isn't the same as impossible.

The government, acting for tax payers, has worked to increase life expectancies, successfully. Somehow that longer time receiving a pension has to be paid for. The private sector has done that by using defined contribution schemes which mean that the employer has no obligation at all beyond the month of employment in which they pay into the pension pot whatever they choose to pay, if anything.

caledonia84

I know things have to change but this is something else, I think the government have another agenda here, yet they have the audacity to call for this http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487

Stargazer57

caledonia84 wrote: »

The new proposals are growing more and more unreasonable for us and people leaving the scheme on mass is a real possibility. As the government plan to implement a cost ceiling on what they contribute then the remaining members will have to contribute more to cover the cost of the firefighters all ready retired, the scheme will collapse surely? it doesn't take a large % to go to make the scheme unviable thus leaving the FRS wide open to privatisation.

The cost ceiling, which is described here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_pensions_firefighters_051211.htm covers the expected cost of the benefits of people currently accruing benefits. Similar cost ceilings have been put in place for other branches of the public sector. They have nothing to do with the cost of the benefits for people who have already retired.

If you (or any other firefighter) leave the scheme you would be making a big mistake. But I would be delighted if you did because it will save me money and you clearly do not appreciate what you have got.

Linton

Stargazer57 wrote: »

The cost ceiling, which is described here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_pensions_firefighters_051211.htm covers the expected cost of the benefits of people currently accruing benefits. Similar cost ceilings have been put in place for other branches of the public sector. They have nothing to do with the cost of the benefits for people who have already retired.

If you (or any other firefighter) leave the scheme you would be making a big mistake. But I would be delighted if you did because it will save me money and you clearly do not appreciate what you have got.

Suggest to the OP that he looks through the referenced document. The "cost ceiling" solely exists for the purposes of negotiation on the exact form of the pension scheme. It isnt something to be implemented once the pension comes to be paid. Supposing because of life expectancy improvements beyond those predicted the actual cost of paying the pensions increases beyond the ceiling, the government isnt going to stop paying - payment until death is guaranteed.

If you look at the cost ceiling figures you will see that they propose that the employer contributes 13.8% of pay. Do firefighters really believe they will be better off not receiving this level of contribution?

caledonia84

But there is no such cost ceiling for firefighters, when will it end? 16% 20% 30% whats stoping them raising our contributions every 5 years until enough of us go?

caledonia84

Thanks for the link by the way just having a look through it just now