Should I withdraw from Public Pension Scheme

mrs_mum_3

Instead of denigrating public secotr workers for their wonderful pensions and taking the "if I can't have it why should they" approach, everyone should be in a final salary scheme and should be fighting for their own right to be in one.

Such poverty of aspiration...

On another matter, the claims of longevity sre spurious, the current 75+ who have a high life expectancy do so because they had restricted calories in their childhood, teens and twenties. Once we start seeing those born post rationing (i.e those born post 1955) ) getting older we are going to life expectancy drop.

The key to longevity is reducing calorie intake in the first 2-3 decades - it isn't going to happen to us forty somethings, and it's too late to do anything about it

atush

mrs_mum wrote: »

Instead of denigrating public secotr workers for their wonderful pensions and taking the "if I can't have it why should they" approach, everyone should be in a final salary scheme and should be fighting for their own right to be in one.

Such poverty of aspiration...

On another matter, the claims of longevity sre spurious, the current 75+ who have a high life expectancy do so because they had restricted calories in their childhood, teens and twenties. Once we start seeing those born post rationing (i.e those born post 1955) ) getting older we are going to life expectancy drop.

The key to longevity is reducing calorie intake in the first 2-3 decades - it isn't going to happen to us forty somethings, and it's too late to do anything about it

No one is denigrating Public Sector workers for their pensions, but only for their denial that things have to change as they are unaffordable. We value public sector workers when they are in their jobs (and not striking perhaps). No one is saying they need to be paid less, laid off nor their hours cut. Just to be realistic.

Your ignorance of economics is quite staggaring. No one can fight for a Private FS scheme as those companies who had them can no longer afford them and stay competitivie in the marketplace, do you remember you know, the free market economy? If in fact they still exist and havent' gone under- companies like BA are fighting to stay solvent under the burden of such schemes. Most that are still open are not open to new members but are closed schemes only for older workers.

Anyone insisting on a FS pension would be let go and swelling the unemployment this has been the truth for 20 yearw now and it begars beleif that this is thei first time public sector workers have even htought about reading about pensions in the real world.

as for the whole longevity cr*p you are forgetting the advances in medicines and treatment not just diet. The horrible lifestyles and early deaths of the chav culture you are anticipationg but may not happen/ We have 20 years plus to wait for that one. I don't beleive it as I grew up in america and food was not restricted like britain and I see problms now with obesity but didn't see them much back in the 70s. I think there are more things influencing this such as inactivity. I do very much beleive diet plays a huge part but this is not just choice/restriction but also convenicence and ignorance.

dshart

mrs_mum wrote: »

Instead of denigrating public secotr workers for their wonderful pensions and taking the "if I can't have it why should they" approach, everyone should be in a final salary scheme and should be fighting for their own right to be in one.

Such poverty of aspiration...

On another matter, the claims of longevity sre spurious, the current 75+ who have a high life expectancy do so because they had restricted calories in their childhood, teens and twenties. Once we start seeing those born post rationing (i.e those born post 1955) ) getting older we are going to life expectancy drop.

The key to longevity is reducing calorie intake in the first 2-3 decades - it isn't going to happen to us forty somethings, and it's too late to do anything about it

It is not a case of "if I can't have it why should they" it is a simple fact that the country can no longer afford to keep paying these generous pensions. But this discussion has been argued in depth in other threads so I wont dwell on it here.

I am more interested in where you got the information that links calorie intake in early years with longevity? A counter argument could be that as a percentage less people smoke now and thus people should be living longer.

If there has been some scientific research that has come up with your findings please do link it as I would be interested in reading about it.

Either way it is a big gamble to take to keep the public service pensions the same because people may have shorter lifespans due to increased calorie intake in early years. What if they got it wrong?????

BobQ

dshart wrote: »

It is not a case of "if I can't have it why should they" it is a simple fact that the country can no longer afford to keep paying these generous pensions. But this discussion has been argued in depth in other threads so I wont dwell on it here.

I think the agrument that public sector staff get favourable pensions and this is unfair compared to private sector workers is more sustainable than arguments about affordability. Hutton said they were affordable and that the changes made in recent years that effectively cap schemes and in one case introduce a career average scheme meant the costs would fall in the longer term. The Office of Budgetary Responsibility agreed. This is all about selectively taxing public sector workers or transferring employer pension contributions to employees, to help the short term deficit.

I suspect that a strawpoll of the average man in the street would prefer that all people get a guaranteed pension based on the contributions made and would prefer not to rely on the impact of markets. The tragedy is that Governments over 30 years have failed abysmally to regulate for a system to deliver it. They have allowed private sector employers and the pensions industry to fail to take responsibility, they have allowed some of the self employed to choose not to bother with funding a pension and they have allowed public sector recruitment and retention to be sustained by a rewards package based on high employer contributions.

As usual its the ordinary person that loses out. Those who orchestrate this do alright from it as they explain its all about longevity etc.

terry2

dshart wrote: »

It is not a case of "if I can't have it why should they" it is a simple fact that the country can no longer afford to keep paying these generous pensions. But this discussion has been argued in depth in other threads so I wont dwell on it here.

But this is missing the point - most public sector workers and their employers were paying into pension schemes, but unfortunately the organisation entrusted with looking after all those pension pots was the Treasury.
Now if that money had been kept in ring-fenced accounts and invested properly - then there would be money for the pensioners. However the Treasury decided not to save the pension pots, but to spend it on current goverment spending, (ie these pension contributions were treated in exactly the same way as national insurance). So public sector workers are irritated because the Treasury, having blown all their savings away, now wants to renege on its promises.

Andy_L

terry2 wrote: »

So public sector workers are irritated because the Treasury, having blown all their savings away, now wants to renege on its promises.

Apart from (arguably) the RPI/CPI switch the treasury has not renaged on any (Public Sector)pension promises

Andy_L

atush wrote: »

No one is saying they need to be paid less, laid off nor their hours cut. Just to be realistic.

Lots of people are saying that. Indeed the 2 year pay freeze achieves the 1st & the various redundancy schemes/recruitment freezes achieves the 2nd

dunstonh

everyone should be in a final salary scheme and should be fighting for their own right to be in one.

And who is willing to pay for that?

dshart

terry2 wrote: »

But this is missing the point - most public sector workers and their employers were paying into pension schemes, but unfortunately the organisation entrusted with looking after all those pension pots was the Treasury.
Now if that money had been kept in ring-fenced accounts and invested properly - then there would be money for the pensioners. However the Treasury decided not to save the pension pots, but to spend it on current goverment spending, (ie these pension contributions were treated in exactly the same way as national insurance). So public sector workers are irritated because the Treasury, having blown all their savings away, now wants to renege on its promises.

It is not missing the point at all. If the employers and employees contributions had been invested in the same way that private sector workers have to now then the returns on the sums invested would be insufficient to fund the pension obligations. Even the LGPS which works similar to what you suggest requires additional funding.

Personally I am of the opinion that it is made a level playing field where employers and employees contributions are invested to generate a pension pot, which is what majority of private sector workers have to do. There would still be the issue of people who have already accrued benefits and how to treat them fairly but that is another issue that could be worked out. I say they should make any new starts in the public sector go onto a similar system to private workers with stakeholder pension or this new NEST system that they are proposing.

atush

dunstonh wrote: »

And who is willing to pay for that?

Not mrs mum i am sure.