Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

CLAPTON

dshart wrote: »

yes I know what one is.

then that will help you do a like for like comparison between the benefits of a career average and a private style funded scheme

you will find the public sector is probably better but the differences are not as massive as claimed and do supercially seem to be 'affordable' in the circumstances that we find ourselves (unfair maybe but affordable).

dshart

CLAPTON wrote: »

then that will help you do a like for like comparison between the benefits of a career average and a private style funded scheme

you will find the public sector is probably better but the differences are not as massive as claimed and do supercially seem to be 'affordable' in the circumstances that we find ourselves (unfair maybe but affordable).

I am not the one trying to do a comparison, I was just pointing out that the figures others are using to base their comparisons on are wrong.

At the end of the day I dont mind how they work out public sector pensions or whether they are better or worse than my private pension. What I do care about is that public sector pensions require additional funding to meet their obligations now or in the future. The contributions are made (employers and employees) and no extra should be put in by the government. If the contributions do not meet the outgoings then the pensions need to be reduced. There are many private sector pensions better than mine and I do not complain about that, but they do not require additional government funding to support them.

Old_Slaphead

CLAPTON wrote: »

you will find the public sector is probably better but the differences are not as massive as claimed and do supercially seem to be 'affordable' in the circumstances that we find ourselves (unfair maybe but affordable).

Under what criteria are they even superficially 'affordable' given that it will take around 30 years (according to Hutton) for the cost to fall to the level of 2007 ie approx 1.6% of GDP.

Given the latest GDP forecasts even that premise is highly debatable.

CLAPTON

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Under what criteria are they even superficially 'affordable' given that it will take around 30 years (according to Hutton) for the cost to fall to the level of 2007 ie approx 1.6% of GDP.

Given the latest GDP forecasts even that premise is highly debatable.

currently 20% of the population is over pensionable age; more if you include the early retired

what proportion of GDP would you say is affordable to support this 20% of the population?

Zelazny

CLAPTON wrote: »

currently 20% of the population is over pensionable age; more if you include the early retired

what proportion of GDP would you say is affordable to support this 20% of the population?

In a sane world, they'd have made provision for their own retirement. The problem is that while those in the private sector effectively do this (by putting money into a pension fund), many of those in the public sector do not (as there is no "fund") and must be supported from taxation.

You say that 20% of the population are now over pensionable age, but how many of those were employed by the state? Given that total population is around 60m, then 20% of that is 12m. There are a further 10m or so that can be classed as too young to work, so the total working population is about 38m. 6m currently work for the state, so that's around 16%. Assuming that the same proportion applies to those in retirement (which it won't - the public sector has expanded rather a lot recently), we get a total of 16%x20% = 3.2%.

So a better (less sensational) question is how much of our GDP should we be spending to provide benefits for the 3.2% of the population who entered into an unfunded pension arrangement with the state?

Note that this is in addition to all the other benefits they're already getting from what the government is spending - the old disproportionately use more NHS money, for example...

DCodd

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Under what criteria are they even superficially 'affordable' given that it will take around 30 years (according to Hutton) for the cost to fall to the level of 2007 ie approx 1.6% of GDP.

Given the latest GDP forecasts even that premise is highly debatable.

Zelazny wrote: »

In a sane world, they'd have made provision for their own retirement. The problem is that while those in the private sector effectively do this (by putting money into a pension fund), many of those in the public sector do not (as there is no "fund") and must be supported from taxation.

You say that 20% of the population are now over pensionable age, but how many of those were employed by the state? Given that total population is around 60m, then 20% of that is 12m. There are a further 10m or so that can be classed as too young to work, so the total working population is about 38m. 6m currently work for the state, so that's around 16%. Assuming that the same proportion applies to those in retirement (which it won't - the public sector has expanded rather a lot recently), we get a total of 16%x20% = 3.2%.

So a better (less sensational) question is how much of our GDP should we be spending to provide benefits for the 3.2% of the population who entered into an unfunded pension arrangement with the state?

Note that this is in addition to all the other benefits they're already getting from what the government is spending - the old disproportionately use more NHS money, for example...

The problem with statements like these are that rely on headline grabbing figures that when you look into them are hard to qualify.

The Hutton reports states that it will take 30 years to reach a level of 1.6% of GDP, how the hell is that at all a reasonable statement to make? GDP may be well in excess of 1.5 Trillion in 5 years time or it could be 700Bn depending on economic growth, inflation and numerous other factors. Without having a foreknowelege of these figures such a prediction is meaningless.

As for asking how much of GDP should we commit to the public pensions, where are the figures that reliably predict the savings that such pensions could provide long term i.e. savings to the Pension credits and housing benefit and the like?

The pensions are affordable and were a very basic condition of employment for the public sector and there is a salary trade off for those pensions.

CLAPTON

Zelazny wrote: »

In a sane world, they'd have made provision for their own retirement. The problem is that while those in the private sector effectively do this (by putting money into a pension fund), many of those in the public sector do not (as there is no "fund") and must be supported from taxation.

You say that 20% of the population are now over pensionable age, but how many of those were employed by the state? Given that total population is around 60m, then 20% of that is 12m. There are a further 10m or so that can be classed as too young to work, so the total working population is about 38m. 6m currently work for the state, so that's around 16%. Assuming that the same proportion applies to those in retirement (which it won't - the public sector has expanded rather a lot recently), we get a total of 16%x20% = 3.2%.

So a better (less sensational) question is how much of our GDP should we be spending to provide benefits for the 3.2% of the population who entered into an unfunded pension arrangement with the state?

Note that this is in addition to all the other benefits they're already getting from what the government is spending - the old disproportionately use more NHS money, for example...

as you probably know there is little difference in terms of the 'burden' on future generations whether or not the pension is funded or unfunded
(one has to be funded by the 38million working people by reducing their income by income tax and the other reduced their income by working to produce profits to pay the private funded pensions)

and
a very useful computation

I believe Hutton gives the figure for public sector pension as a little less than 2% of GDP and one that is scheduled (with the 2007 changes ) to fall to 1.4% of gdp.

Le73Uq86Uv

Why knock the public sector for having a pension scheme, how about the private sector complaining that ours is not very good and not protected.

Ask the goverment to provide a fully protected pension sytem backed up up by public funds if required.

Keep knocking the public sector will not improve yours or make it safer all it will do is weeken all pension provision for all.

Debbie_A_3

Zelazny wrote: »

In a sane world, they'd have made provision for their own retirement. The problem is that while those in the private sector effectively do this (by putting money into a pension fund), many of those in the public sector do not (as there is no "fund") and must be supported from taxation.

Please can we stop this bickering. Yes, I am a public sector employee and I know that the Teachers' Pension Fund has no fund. But this is not my fault. I have been contributing 20% of my remuneration package for years. It is not my fault that the government has chosen to use this money to pay the bills, rather than invest it in a proper fund.

The folks who own the country must be laughing at us. Whilst we sling mud at each other, they are quietly taking more and more out of the system for themselves:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8853761/FTSE-100-directors-pay-jumps-49pc.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hwBhZn04opghJna4rzRqndTieqPQ?docId=N0755351321759162489A

Debbie

sheffield_lad

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

Why knock the public sector for having a pension scheme, how about the private sector complaining that ours is not very good and not protected.

Ask the government to provide a fully protected pension sytem backed up up by public funds if required.

Keep knocking the public sector will not improve yours or make it safer all it will do is weeken all pension provision for all.

And another one rolls up with their head in the sand, the public sector schemes are unaffordable we can't afford not to reform these schemes.

Where do you think the money will come from to continue subsidising the schemes? Let me guess you blame the bankers, they can pay for it lol.