Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

CLAPTON

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

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.

what criteria are you using to say it's 'high'?
in cash terms today, what would you say is reasonable and affordable per retire public pensioner?

cvd

I think the current commitment to leave PS pensions as they are for next 25 years, as given by ConDems recently

I am amazed that anyone believes this. It is a lie - or being charitable, a negotiating tactic.
No government can restrict a subsequent government in this way - and if the next election returns a Conservative government without the need for LibDem support, then it is quite likely the matter will be revisited. They would have a justification - the political circumstances would then be different and the economic circumstances would then be different.

Old_Slaphead

CLAPTON wrote: »

what criteria are you using to say it's 'high'?

The criteria that up to yr 2000 the cost has been around 1.4% and the long term goal is to return to that level. Trouble is it's going to take 50 years (re forecast in Hutton Report) to achieve.

DCodd

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

The criteria that up to yr 2000 the cost has been around 1.4% and the long term goal is to return to that level. Trouble is it's going to take 50 years (re forecast in Hutton Report) to achieve.

So if the net benefits paid is 1.4% of GDP, are you saying you would be happy?

CLAPTON

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

The criteria that up to yr 2000 the cost has been around 1.4% and the long term goal is to return to that level. Trouble is it's going to take 50 years (re forecast in Hutton Report) to achieve.

what criteria are you using to say 1.4% is a goal... tell me what pension will that provide on average

Old_Slaphead

DCodd wrote: »

So if the net benefits paid is 1.4% of GDP, are you saying you would be happy?

Happy - what's that? Like you I'm old & grumpy

IMHO if 1.4% is some sort of historic average and a future aim then it's apparently a level that's seems to be deemed sustainable.

Personally I think public DB schemes should be scrapped in the medium term.

Old_Slaphead

CLAPTON wrote: »

what criteria are you using to say 1.4% is a goal... tell me what pension will that provide on average

Maybe 'goal' is the wrong word - it's the projection in Hutton Report.

As for average pension - that will depend on the impact and degree of implimentation of some/all of suggestons in Hutton Report, life expectancy, average salary in 50 years time etc.

The average pension may not be affected at all if increased employee contributions, later retirement etc etc were used to reduce cost.

DCodd

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Happy - what's that? Like you I'm old & grumpy

IMHO if 1.4% is some sort of historic average and a future aim then it's apparently a level that's seems to be deemed sustainable.

Personally I think public DB schemes should be scrapped in the medium term.

Old & Grumpy will come to them all, so we will not be alone;)

The figures you are talking about seem to be from the final report, which have a greater level of variability. The data those figures are based on are referred to in the interim report which shows that the 1.6% includes the employee contribution. The interim report points to net liability of, currently approx 1.45% rising to 1.5% over the next 2 years then dropping back to 1.45 - 1.4% over the following 10-15 years on to a forecasted 1.1% in 20-30 years. But you need to look at the data from GAD, OBR and HM Treasury (with a cursory look at the ONS raw data) to see that it is mainly rather speculative, suggesting an increase in Public sector employees of 0.5% currently and a forecast of an increase of 0.25% year on year to boot. It also suggests a year on year growth in GDP of 2% and inflation running at around the 2-3% level.

This all well and good for a headline figure but as people have said, why not just value the pensions? But do it properly and not via the current liability method when figures of £1trillion+ were bounded about.

CLAPTON

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Maybe 'goal' is the wrong word - it's the projection in Hutton Report.

As for average pension - that will depend on the impact and degree of implimentation of some/all of suggestons in Hutton Report, life expectancy, average salary in 50 years time etc.

The average pension may not be affected at all if increased employee contributions, later retirement etc etc were used to reduce cost.

answer the simple question
what do you consider to be a reasonable and fair pension for public sector pensioner?

Oog

This possibly should be a new thread but here goes...

If I am in the Union and they decided to strike next Thursday but I voted 'No' (for various reasons including how the pensions question was posed and actually agreeing that things will and have to be renegotiated) can I chose not to strike?

I want to show solidarity but I do not want to put the public's lives at risk by not doing my job. Could I do this by supporting the picket line in my lunch break for example?

I don't feel the Strike will a) help gain support for pension change discussions - changes are inevitable over the next 35 years until my colleagues and I retire - or b) highlight the fact that Public sector individuals are currently doing a lot to try and save money, minimise service disruption and job losses and keep up the good work that most of us (yes - I can hear you, oh, the great disgruntled) try to give. I wouldn't want to lose the option of joining a pension scheme but I also recognise that it has to be affordable on some level.

I accept I may feel differently if I was going to retire in the next 5-10 years but I'm not.

Thanks, (Scabby) Oog