Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Ygor

jamesd wrote: »

Are those really sufficient to deal with a change from life expectancy where an average person didn't live beyond age 65 to one where an average person lives for 23 years beyond age 65? That's at least those 23 years of extra retirement age that have to be funded somehow - and a combination of higher contributions and longer working lives, but also longer retired lives seems like the only viable way to do it.

Hard to see how just capping could achieve the required extra pension funding without making teachers excessively poorly paid during their working lives.

That looks like a tiny reduction compared to the change in life expectancy that has to be funded.

All final salary private sector pension schemes. Their liability for additional payments by the employer is related to gilt yields. That's why they increase when fiscal easing is in effect. More generally there's some expectation that in the UK investment returns can be expected to drop over the next 25 years or so because many people will be switching from buying to selling of investments as the large baby boomer generation retires and starts drawing on their investments for income. That's more of a stressor for private sector schemes than public sector ones, though.

Those things are largely irrelevant compared to the elephant in the room, the longer life expectancy.

You think 23 more years of pension payments costs nothing to provide? That's a huge burden. It's not even a stable one since life expectancies continue to increase.

Now I'm being a little unfair in saying 23 years because teachers about to retire didn't start working when the average man died before reaching 65 but there's still been a huge increase in life expectancy over the careers of teachers who are retiring now. And will, if current trends continue, be another big increase for a teacher starting work today, who may end up with more years retired than working if there's no change to retirement ages.

It's not easy or cheap to fund the very long retirements that we have to plan for these days but it beats the alternatives.

You've missed the point of my post.

The government should continue to put the same amount into pensions as employer contributions and interest as it is currently doing.

Of course, increased longevity will increase the total contributions necessary. It's then up to negotiation to increase employee contributions or decrease benefits (or a combination of both). Of course capping won't create the extra funding necessary. Maybe I should have been clearer in saying for pensions to be affordable to the taxpayer, capping should be honoured.


However, the government has taken the opportunity to renege on current agreements under the banner of 'increased longevity' so that even if longevity did not change, employees would still need to make larger contributions or reduced benefits because of the government's 'savings'.

Ygor

Stargazer57 wrote: »

In the real world the market determines the rate of return. In case you hadn't noticed market rates of return have plummetted in recent years. But you seem to think this is some sort of pay cut.

The rate of return on an investment guaranteed by the Government is set daily by the market using the price of index-linked gilts. The prospective real return halved between the middle of 1997 and the end of 1998 from around 4% to 2% and has stayed below that level ever since but the Government did nothing about the assumed rate of return on public sector pensions for more than a decade. So they have been paying out more than the market return for the whole of that period. In recent years the return has dipped below below 0.5% yet they are still allowing much higher rates on public sector pensions.

So for a pension fund investing in 1997, the expectation is the governement would continue paying 4% on that investment (this investment would have done even better as the reduction in yields is due to increases in gilt prices)

What the government has done is drop the rate on all money in the SCAPE account, not just new investment.

twink22

howee wrote: »

Plenty of time to do so with 13 repeat THIRTEEN weeks off, hang on marking you mean that 1hr and 1/2 when the kids have gone home?

Nurses do a decent job (bar standing chatting to their mates too often), but is it harder than retail where staff get treat like dirt and have long shifts often with no breaks? and lets not forget who have DOUBLE the amount of sick leave???? Ring any bells lol.

A&E staff, teachers, you all choose it, I choose to work 60hrs a week with one day off (Sunday) tomorrow yipee as I also choose it. The police retire far too early and complaine when they pay 11% into a pension, try paying 10% in for 1/68th accural rate (muggings here)

Stop trying to make out your any harder working than the rest of us, the fact is the country cannot afford your pensions, and if you don't reform now you will have to but will need to put even more in later.

WAKE up public workers, Join the real world

Comparing nurses and retail workers- are you sure you live in the real world? What a complete load of rubbish.

I'm a public sector worker and realise changes have to be made but lets start with the scrounging benefits cheats, the million pound MTIC fraudsters, the excise evaders etc that I'm working over 60 hours a week to catch from stealing our tax. I'm getting paid a darn sight less than private sector workers doing a job with the same skill levels, so less of the playground name calling please, we arent all greedy.

dunstonh

I'm getting paid a darn sight less than private sector workers doing a job with the same skill levels, so less of the playground name calling please, we arent all greedy.

Problem is that you are not getting paid a darned site less when you compare employment packages with those in the private sector.

Had you still been earning pre 1997 levels vs private sector I would have sympathy. However, the public sector pay rises were higher than private sector post 1997. The public sector pensions used to make up for the low level of pay and a working life in the public sector. However, that is no longer the case so some adjustment is needed.

Moby

Quote Howee:-

Why are public sector workers any different to the private sector? When will a plumber, carpet fitter, bricklayer or plasterer retire?

I have friends in all these trades (all don't have any pension at all), will they be able to retire at 60?

Surely this depends on how much 'cash in hand' they are able to get ........people are soooo naive!



Quote Dunstonh

Had you still been earning pre 1997 levels vs private sector I would have sympathy. However, the public sector pay rises were higher than private sector post 1997

Simplistic comment Dunstonh:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I've weighed this up, tried to analyse it, tried to see either side, but I still come to the same conclusion;

Ahhh yes........... we've benefitted from your balanced analysis on this subject time and time again haven't we!:o

This is an act by a sector of the comunity that have their heads in the sand or so far up their !!! that they cannot relate to present day economics

.

So you are a self appointed expert on present day economics or are you just angry about your own pension and falling for the Government's propoganda

Add to the fact that so many have been institutionalised by never having been outside the educational blanket, ie, the real world, and you may understand the issues.

So the police, fire fighters, doctors, nurses, teachers, probation officers etc are not in the 'real world'. How arrogant that sounds. People in the public services provide your emergency services, clear your rubbish, provide your health care, teach the next generation and protect you from crime!

The world is changing, please accept that???

Totally agree...strikes and demonstrations are taking place from New York to Athens. A few weeks ago this Government embarked on another round of quantitative easing.......where has this money gone?? Has it been invested in employment schemes? has it gone towards reducing VAT? Has it been invested in housing construction?.......no it hasn't...... guess where it has gone....straight back to the banks!
Are the banks using this money to provide loans to enable the start up of new businesses? No they aren't......they are shoring up their credit against further recession.

The speculators, investment bankers, short sellers, etc who gambled in the sub prime market and started a crash beginning with the Lehman Brothers should be the real target of your hostility. Yet all you do on here is continually bleat about public service pensions.

In my opinion public service workers are being trashed, demonised and scapegoated because they are an easy visible target. This of course suits the Government because they want to weaken the unions, break up/privatise public services and most importantly it distracts from them having to take some hard decisions about regulating financial services and introducing a Tobin Tax on their political funders/buddies in the City!

The_Angry_Jock

BobQ wrote: »

You speak as if its only the public sector that outsources.

I'm not saying that at all and nothing I've said suggests that, what I saying is that many of you public sector bods instist on repeatedly telling us that you are doing equivilent jobs better and cheaper than the private sector, if that's the case then why are you outsourcing?

BobQ wrote: »

Many successful private sector enterprises outsource certain types of jobs if it can be done more efficiently. You know by people on minimum wages who cannot afford to pay for pensions while their employers compete for more such contracts.

I don't disagree with you however you've just admitted that sections of the private sector are in fact not as fantastical as being generally conveyed on these threads.

Public sector in exploiting the poor just like the private sector OUTRAGE!!!

cyclonebri1

real1314 wrote: »

Well, you've categorised yourself as someone who can't see the difference between 1/60th and 1/80th.
:cool:

Maybe that's because my private sector pension was a 120th scheme?? A fair reason to consider the Public sector scheme generous:p

Lady_Aga

Moby wrote: »

In my opinion public service workers are being trashed, demonised and scapegoated because they are an easy visible target. This of course suits the Government because they want to weaken the unions, break up/privatise public services and most importantly it distracts from them having to take some hard decisions about regulating financial services and introducing a Tobin Tax on their political funders/buddies in the City!

By imposing pay freezes or £250 token pay rises each year, cutting perks (no flexitime, unpaid overtime) and freezing recruitment (not replacing people who leave, no promotion), the government is trying to create a hostile work environment in a lot of its departments. Forcing people to resign is cheaper then paying them severance pay. The redundancy payments have already been reduced.

Middle management levels are made obsolete and the more junior levels absorb the work of the former higher levels.

When times are tough, in this climate, people do not join a union or go on strike because they are scared for their jobs. They can still remember what happened to the unions in the 80's. They keep their heads down and get on with the work, hoping that it will not be them next for the chop. They need this job to pay their mortgage.

Lady_Aga

Can anyone do the sums for a more average civil servant than the previous calculations?

Salary = £18,500
Years in post = 20
Contributions by employee = 1.5%

Thanks

cyclonebri1

Moby wrote: »

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

.

So you are a self appointed expert on present day economics or are you just angry about your own pension and falling for the Government's propoganda

Too dam right I am which is why I no longer want to support your unaffordable comfort blanket

Strange you can accept the world is changing but can't accept a change that affects your own pocket. None of us are/have been treated any different, we are all getting the crappy end of the stick.

And no one, you or I, are going to change anything by playing P v P tennis on here, but we have our views and are free to express them, (at the moment):o