Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

jem16

howee wrote: »

My employer DID change the conditions of my pension, remember in real world final salary pensions have gone lol.

Not for all. There are still many who remain on final salary pensions which are closed to new entrants.

Try, losing final salary, going to defined pension with no contribution from my employer (of over 10,000), then paying in 10% for 1/68th when I retire at 68.

What's a defined pension?

You either have a defined benefit pension or a defined contribution pension. As you are talking about a 1/68th I would assume defined benefit therefore the employer contribution is irrelevant.

Sound good? and none of us threatened to withdraw our labour we accept this is the real world where things can't be borrowed forever and need to be affordable.

So why won't the Government value the teacher's scheme as has been requested?

CLAPTON

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

The 1.6% of GDP (which equates to over 3% of total tax take) refers to public sector pensions not state pensions (that's several more % on top).

At that level it will exceed spending on Education and Defence (not combined though).

That amount is being paid to employees, in the main, who've benefited from above average salaries.

This, to me, seems generous to the point of extravagent.

Public FS pensions were introduced to compensate for years of alleged low pay in public service - this is clearly not the situation now.

yes public not state as my post said

ok so if 1.6% is unaffordable
so what is the correct figure and why?

why ever would pension be less than education ..what calculation do you do to say that is either reasonable or unreasonable; frankly I have no idea?

pensions are built up over 40 years and paid out over 25
do you really think we should make decisions over this period on the basis of one or two difficult years

The_Angry_Jock

CLAPTON wrote: »

pensions are built up over 40 years and paid out over 25, do you really think we should make decisions over this period on the basis of one or two difficult years

One or two? we're heading into the fifth with no end in sight.

StephenM_2

jem16 wrote: »

Not for all. There are still many who remain on final salary pensions which are closed to new entrants

That's true. I'm one of them. Private sector final salary 1/60th scheme.

I currently pay 5%, but its going up to 7% in January and 9% in 2013. I did have the option of dropping to 1/80th whilst staying at 5%, but chose the more expensive option. The scheme closed to new members in September.

jem16

StephenM wrote: »

That's true. I'm one of them. Private sector final salary 1/60th scheme.

I currently pay 5%, but its going up to 7% in January and 9% in 2013. I did have the option of dropping to 1/80th whilst staying at 5%, but chose the more expensive option. The scheme closed to new members in September.

My late husband's final salary scheme is still running - also a 1/60ths scheme with contributions at 7% just now.

I have also received a letter from then saying that my pension from them will still be using RPI each year, unlike my public sector scheme which has changed to CPI with no consultation.

CLAPTON

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

One or two? we're heading into the fifth with no end in sight.

remind me what is the drop in GDP over those years?

maybe drop the public sector pensions pot by that amount ?
would that be fair?

and increae it again if GDP increases in the fture
would that be fair?

Stargazer57

CLAPTON wrote: »

remind me what is the drop in GDP over those years?

maybe drop the public sector pensions pot by that amount ?
would that be fair?

and increae it again if GDP increases in the fture
would that be fair?

I'd start from 1997.
Public sector pension liabilities quadrupled between 1997 and 2007 from around 250bn to around 1000bn.
I agree it would have been preferable if they had merely kept pace with GDP during that time.
Perhaps this is the last we will hear of benchmarking public sector pensions at their high water mark.

Zelazny

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm in the teachers pension fund and yes I have made OUTSIDE provsions for my retirement by starting businesses up, running them for decades and building them up then selling them.

Obviously I am also contributing to the teachers fund because it's a great deal, are you really expecting us to believe that if you were in a position to join the scheme you would refuse on a point of principle?

By the way I wouldn't dream of striking because my students need me to be lecturing not poncing about on strike.

Oh, I'd join in a second, if I had the chance - as you say, it's too good to pass up. But this is what galls me - the people who set it up must have said to themselves: "We can't afford to provide a decent pension, but if we pay for it out of taxation, we can shift the burden to whoever's in power in 20 years time."

No private scheme is allowed to be paid for out of profits, and quite rightly - why should the state be different? Just like all private schemes had to provide equal benefits for men and women from 1990, but the state scheme could take it's time.

They knew it was unaffordable when it was set up - and it's so much worse now given the changes to annuity rates and gilt yields - and yet noone wants to change it to a funded scheme, because it would cost too much.

I'm not unhappy with the members (although they really should realise that they're getting an unbeatable deal at present, and the proposed changes still leave it as better than they'd likely get elsewhere) but I am unhappy with the people who set it up and those who refuse to consider changing it to a fairer, more reasonable system.

CLAPTON

Zelazny wrote: »

Oh, I'd join in a second, if I had the chance - as you say, it's too good to pass up. But this is what galls me - the people who set it up must have said to themselves: "We can't afford to provide a decent pension, but if we pay for it out of taxation, we can shift the burden to whoever's in power in 20 years time."

No private scheme is allowed to be paid for out of profits, and quite rightly - why should the state be different? Just like all private schemes had to provide equal benefits for men and women from 1990, but the state scheme could take it's time.

They knew it was unaffordable when it was set up - and it's so much worse now given the changes to annuity rates and gilt yields - and yet noone wants to change it to a funded scheme, because it would cost too much.

I'm not unhappy with the members (although they really should realise that they're getting an unbeatable deal at present, and the proposed changes still leave it as better than they'd likely get elsewhere) but I am unhappy with the people who set it up and those who refuse to consider changing it to a fairer, more reasonable system.

Actually ALL private funded schemes are funded out of profits.
And they are funded out of FUTURE profits.

Sadly it takes a little time to understand that there is very little difference between the 'burden' on the future generation of funded and unfunded schemes.

The people who set up state unfunded pension schemes knew that but didn't anticipate the huge political interference and the endless talk about 'unaffordable' without saying what it means.
Final salary schemes are unfair but so are funded schemes.

We need a better model for all the people of the country. By choosing to concentrate of the public sector it avoids any discussion of the disgraceful private sector schemes.

Old_Slaphead

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes public not state as my post said

ok so if 1.6% is unaffordable
so what is the correct figure and why?

why ever would pension be less than education ..what calculation do you do to say that is either reasonable or unreasonable; frankly I have no idea?

pensions are built up over 40 years and paid out over 25
do you really think we should make decisions over this period on the basis of one or two difficult years

It's only affordable in the context that some other part of public expenditure will need to have reduced funding to accomodate the burgeoning cost.

The average cost in the 1990s increased from 1% to 1.4% in 2000. From 2000 it's progressively increased to 1.9% now. Plans are, assuming growth figures are met which seems unlikely given that most economists are suggesting a decade of low growth, that the cost will slowly reduce to 1.6% over the next 30 years.

That seems high to me. Affordable, perhaps, but the money will have to be squeezed from elsewhere in public spending - maybe a long term pay freeze for public sector will be the answer, after all they are not contractual.

As regards decisions being made after 1 or 2 difficult years - I think the current commitment to leave PS pensions as they are for next 25 years, as given by ConDems recently, is absolutely crazy.