Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

michelle1506

I think some people on here forget that we ALL pay tax. To be frank I have already decided that the changes made will have to be because of the state of the economy. NOTHING whatsoever to do with some of the nasty comments made on here directed to hard working people such as myself, who are employed in the public sector.

You know there are far better ways to negotiate and influence people in order to change their minds and bring them round to your way of thinking, then what is displayed here.

The private sector will still 'pick up the tab' when more benefits are being payed out to some public sector workers when they retire, as their pension may not be enough.

michelle1506

I happen to think that the private sector needs to improve it's pension provisions for it's employees. I fail to see how bringing the public sector to the same level is particularly helpful.

We should all be entitled to a decent enough pension when we retire.

sheffield_lad

michelle1506 wrote: »

I happen to think that the private sector needs to improve it's pension provisions for it's employees. I fail to see how bringing the public sector to the same level is particularly helpful.

We should all be entitled to a decent enough pension when we retire.

This is not a UK only problem though Michelle, the whole world is getting older not just us in the UK, what the private sector has already done is accept this, the only one's left are public sector employees and their unions.

What do you think the current pension deficit is for private sector company's? BILLIONS owed in and that's after all the changes inc working until 68 and employees paying more in. What you are suggesting is the same companys to pay more out and make the black hole bigger lol.

Forget about the race to the bottom thats a union line just think yourself lucky that the Gov dod not put your pension out of a defined arrangmet and you had to buy your own.

Just for the record to receive £5k per year in a pension a private sector on the open market you would need a pension pot of around £350k or 20% contribtions over 30yrs.

As for everyone turning to benefits, I think anyone who has at least 5yrs in a PS pension scheme will be over the amount to receive any pension credits, which just goes to show that despite the changes the pension you have on offer is FANTASTIC.

jem16

J_i_m wrote: »

Not quite sure what you're expecting or wanting me to say to this.

Just like to know how you feel.

Are you one of these people chomping at the bit to label people as scab?

Not at all jim, far from it.

I voted no to strike action as I fet other actions should have been explored first, like a work to rule. When the ballot came back as a yes vote I fought long and hard with myself over what to do as did every single member of my staffroom.

In the end though we gave our support as what was the point in being in a union otherwise? The only reason there are further offers is because of the action being taken by members. As Moby says it's that collective bargaining power that is its strength but it needs the support of its members.

Why are you in a union? I'm genuinely interested in your reasons.

jem16

howee wrote: »

This is not a UK only problem though Michelle, the whole world is getting older not just us in the UK, what the private sector has already done is accept this, the only one's left are public sector employees and their unions.

Most of the public sector schemes are now on age 65 retiral and have been for a number of years. All of those won't get their state pension till age 67/68 just as with the private sector.

How many private sector pension schmes have changed to age 67/68 for retiral?

Forget about the race to the bottom thats a union line

No it's a reality.

Just for the record to receive £5k per year in a pension a private sector on the open market you would need a pension pot of around £350k or 20% contribtions over 30yrs.

Think you had better see a better IFA. That would make an annuity rate of 1.42%.

As for everyone turning to benefits, I think anyone who has at least 5yrs in a PS pension scheme will be over the amount to receive any pension credits, which just goes to show that despite the changes the pension you have on offer is FANTASTIC.

What I would like to see is what happens to young people trying to find a job once all these workers who would otherwise have retired at age 60/65 have to stay in their jobs until age 67/68.

Will a whole lot of new jobs be created? I doubt it!

hugheskevi

In the current years budget the cost of public sector pensions is £129bn

The gross cost of public service pensions is £28.5bn, and net cost £6.2bn (source here)

The £129bn will be mostly DWP expenditure on State Pension - it is unclear exactly what they use as the definition of pension spending [edit -Ygor clarifies this below], but DWP will spend £110bn on pensioners in 2012/13, none of which is public service pension expenditure (source here).

There was an interesting presentation given recently by Robert Chote, head of the OBR, extract below:

The main [long-term] pressures are from age‐related spending:

• Health spending rises from 7.4 to 9.8 per cent of GDP.
• State pension costs increase from 5.5 to 7.9 per cent of GDP.
• And social care costs rise from 1.2 to 2 per cent of GDP in 2060‐61.

These pressures are partially offset by a fall in gross public service pension payments from 2 to 1.4 per cent of GDP. This reflects the decisions to up‐rate pensions in payment by CPI rather than RPI, the current pay freeze and planned workforce reductions.

Just for the record to receive £5k per year in a pension a private sector on the open market you would need a pension pot of around £350k or 20% contribtions over 30yrs.

You should see an IFA - even choosing a male aged 60 with a spouse aged 57 purchasing a joint life annuity increasing by RPI, £350,000 would get you £9,870 per year (source Annuity Bureau)*

*never rely on annuity tables to purchase an annuity - an IFA will usually be able to obtain a better rate

Ygor

dshart wrote: »

In the current years budget the cost of public sector pensions is £129bn while total borrowing is £122bn and what we spend on healthcare is £123bn. 18% of the budget is on pensions and it is the largest single category of government spending. So saying the pensions are not part of the country's debt problem is wrong. Yes people should get a decent pension for their years of service but not at the cost of everything else. The government has to look at all ways of cutting its spending and with any budget balancing exercise you always look at the big cost items first and then go down the list.

On the ukpublicspending website, the £129bn is for state pensions and sickness and disability rather than occupational pensions.
It claims its source material is PESA2011. I suggest you look there.

The_Angry_Jock

jem16 wrote: »

What I would like to see is what happens to young people trying to find a job once all these workers who would otherwise have retired at age 60/65 have to stay in their jobs until age 67/68.

Will a whole lot of new jobs be created? I doubt it!

I kind of see this as a non-issue and one of the flimsiest arguments against raising retirement ages.

For a start, there's going to be a far larger retired population in the future than ther is now, even with the raise in retirement age, this group will require a proportionate rise in services, this would mean more jobs.

You also don't know what market conditions will be like in 20-30 years time, it might all work itself out, pretty much how it's done for the last...forever.

The bigger problem we have as an ageing population is finding people to fill the jobs as younger generations aren't reproducing as our parents and grandparent. Indefinite continual growth is impossible in the long term and unsustainable in the short-medium term.

dizzie

CLAPTON wrote: »

20% of the country are over retirement age (that's an approximate fact)

what share of national income do you think is affordable for the that 20% to enjoy?

what share do they currently enjoy?

I only ask because you KNOW that the current pensions aren't affordable so you are in an excellent position to know tha facts about this.

I will take your word for it that 20% of the population of this country are over retirement age since you clearly have the figures to hand. Does that include everyone who has taken early retirement too? However, you know as well as I do that that does NOT mean that the other 80% of the population are economically productive. I take it you have heard of things such as unemployment?

The fact is that the books don't balance. More money flows out of the treasury coffers than flows in....errrr....that's why we have to borrow money to meet all of our budget commitments. The economic slump, stagnation in growth and rising unemployment means that the country is going further and faster into the red. Our creditors are monitoring this and if we look like we're getting ourselves into too much trouble, they'll downgrade our financial rating and whack up interest on our borrowing much like they did for Italy this week.

Of course, as any good housekeeper knows about their budget, you can protect spending in one area by cutting spending in another. I do not claim that taxpayer's money is spent wisely...look at the great £11 billion NHS computer system that never worked! But the situation we are in cannot rely on creating penny savings...and to protect pensions for everyone would mean having to make massive sacrifices elsewhere. What are you suggesting? Saving money in other areas e.g. scrapping all but lifesaving treatments in the NHS or getting kids to leave school at 14....just so you don't have to make budget savings on pensions?

dshart

Moby wrote: »

Cameron is in thrall to his Tory party funders in the city, (to all you union knockers who are they accountable to by the way)! and his own right wing headbangers....his stance has nothing to do with the wider interests of this country. He has cut us adrift from all future decisions of consequence regarding trade etc by alienating lets think .....about 26 of our neighbours who provide 40% of our trade. Only a fool would think otherwise! I'm aghast at posters on here being unable or unwilling to grasp this. The one thing history teaches us.....is whatever your stance you have to have a seat at the table. China, Brazil, India etc will not be interested in having a separate deal with us....they will deal with the power centre in Europe! Cameron is an embarrasement and Sarkozy shafted him. He had dinner last night with about 30 of his tory backbenchers who toasted his bulldog spirit apparently......:rotfl:These people do not care at all about the interests of individuals who use these forums to save money or make the right financial decisions. They are purely driven by their own desire to hold on to power and protect their privileges. Its unbelievable what is happening in this country now.....but the Daily Mail readers will continue to lap it up:p

It'll be interesting now what stance Clegg takes....will he show some backbone and principle and fight this madness as a pro European Liberal Democrat surely would?......or will he only be to happy to keep his ministerial car and 'Deputy PM' title.:rotfl:

Moby, I note you choose to ignore my comments to your previous post on this subject.

You want the government to sign up to this deal that gives budgetary control to some unelected Eurozone body, yet you find it difficult to accept the budget cuts being implemented by our own elected government, how are you going to accept those from Europe.

Look at the austerity measures Greece has had to implement in order to get the bail out, their public sector pay and pensions have had to be cut drastically, it is a similar story in Ireland, and now these countries are being forced to hand over budget control to Germany and France. In the UK if the budget cuts get to much we have the choice of voting in someone who will be more lax in a few years, but with Europe control it will not matter who is in power the hardship of cuts will remain.

In Europe at present Germany has the manufacturing base, France the agricultural and Britain has the Financial sector. DC is correct to try and protect that otherwise we lose control of one of the main streams of tax revenues in the country. (I do believe that the industry needs better regulation but not at the expense of it moving elsewhere).

If Germany want to solve the crisis why do they oppose the issue of Eurobonds that would share the risk of debt throughout all the Euro members. The reason is that they do not want to take the risk of someone else's debt but they still want these countries to be able to buy their goods.

The main players in Europe all have their own agendas and are all looking after their own interests. DC was between a rock and a hard place with the decision he took, but I think he made the correct choice.

Europe is not yet ready for a United States of Europe, there are still too many differences.