Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

The_Angry_Jock

Moby wrote: »

Quote Atush:-

Don't forget we are all going to lose out as a result of this Govmts bloody mindedness and also don't forget your point above only confirms how critical the services we provide are and that we deserve better than to be treated in this way!

Only a small percentage of jobs can be considered critical, the country isn't going to grind to a halt on Wednesday. Why should you be singled out for better treatment than any other hard working individual? Absolutely selfish.

Moby wrote: »

Because we provide your public services and we don't get a lot of our pay 'cash in hand'!

I get 0% of my income "cash in hand" same as most of the poplulation. I'm also certain that there are some in the public sector who would happily do homers for an extra bit of tax free cash.

dshart

real1314 wrote: »

Director's Pensions are higher than anything in the public sector.

Yet the directors via the CBI are saying public sector pensions are unaffordable.

A bit like Pickles calling people for being overweight?

Private Sector unaffordable pensions don't seem to worry all the private sector workers on here. Ironic. :cool:

So eeryone in the public sector expectes to be treated like a director of a major private company? Please get real when trying to do comparisons to justify your argument.

I can agree that the pension arrangements for some of these so called high flyers can be extremely generous, but to use them to compare with the average worker in any sector is wrong.

Private sector unaffordable pensions are generally a thing of the past and even if they were unaffordable they were not a drain on the country's finances. The risk of those schemes was picked up by the company concerned not the government, and even if the scheme went bust the government guarantees were paid out of additional levies on other schemes.

dshart

For anyone who believes that the country can go on ignoring the national debt take a read of the austerity measures in Greece in the link below and then tell me if you would just be striking or would you be rioting on the streets when faced with such measures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13940431

You can go on pretending it could never happen in the UK but if it does there will be very few options left but the type of measures Greece has been forced to take.

Again I will say that public sector pensions are only one part of the problem and a lot of other measures need to be taken to tackle the countries debt. But if the debt is not tackled then we face much harder times.

Koicarp

izools wrote: »

Just for the record I thought I'd let everyone know I work for the NHS and have no objection whatsoever to the changes to the pension scheme. It remains better than any private sector pension in the land. I find it disapointing that many public sector works have lost sight of the fact they are stlil incredibly well off, that they have become so blinkered that they can only compare their new pension to their old one - yes, it isn't as good. So who cares? It's still better than any other pension in the land.

Can you show the figures (and the source of them) for your new pension please?

hugheskevi

It's still better than any other pension in the land.

Aside from 2.1 million private sector DB pensions, and some DC ones with high contributions. That wouldn't meet my definition of 'any.'

Private sector unaffordable pensions are generally a thing of the past and even if they were unaffordable they were not a drain on the country's finances.

Companies such as BT, Royal Mail and BA have huge pension deficits. They have to spend hundreds of millions each year in special contributions to make good those deficits. That is money that could be used for wages, lower prices or dividends. Consumers suffer due to the promises made to historic workers that have to funded from revenues today. Paying higher prices for many services is very similar to a tax and definitely a drain on the country's finances.

The risk of those schemes was picked up by the company concerned not the government, and even if the scheme went bust the government guarantees were paid out of additional levies on other schemes.

The Pension Protection Fund has only been in place post 2005. Prior to that, schemes winding up underfunded went into the Financial Assistance Scheme - a taxpayer funded scheme, costing about £3bn or so.

It might help to give an idea of scale.

The current gross expenditure on public service pensions is about £30 billion over the next few years. That is about the same as Tax Credits, twice as much as Housing benefit and a bit under half of State Pension (basic state pension plus additional pension). It is a bit under a third of the amount of benefits (included State Pension, not including public service pension expenditure) going to people over working age.

dshart

hugheskevi wrote: »

The Pension Protection Fund has only been in place post 2005. Prior to that, schemes winding up underfunded went into the Financial Assistance Scheme - a taxpayer funded scheme, costing about £3bn or so.

The FAS scheme was also funded by levies on other schemes, so it was not a drain on the country's finances.

With regard to the pension deficits in BA, BT and Royal Mail, you will note that these are all former public sector companies that were privatised and are still left with the huge liabilities of the pension schemes. You say that people paying a higher price is similar to a tax hence no different from the case of the public sector pensions, but it is very different. You have a choice to use BA, BT or royal Mail and pay this so called tax due to higher prices, you do not have a choice with government taxation. I cannot choose to opt out of the services of the public sector and get a refund on my taxes. If they gave people that option you can bet there would be no public sector at all and the country would be in a right state.

hugheskevi

The FAS scheme was also funded by levies on other schemes, so it was not a drain on the country's finances.

No it isn't. It takes in some of the assets of the schemes, but the taxpayer puts in about £3bn. It is not part of the FSCS, which is funded by levies on finance industry.

Links such as this confirm:

17. The additional cost of this package takes the total Government commitment to £12.5 billion in cash terms (£2.9 billion Net Present Value).

As an aside, the Govt. legislated such that private industry could contribute to the cost of funding the FAS. To the best of my knowledge, the total amount voluntarily contributed by industry so far remains at £0

You say that people paying a higher price is similar to a tax hence no different from the case of the public sector pensions, but it is very different.

At the macro level, you have a transfer from today's workers to today's pensioners, just like public service pensions. Quite how that transfer is distributed varies, just as it does for tax-payer funding (highest earners pay more of it, just like those that use Royal Mail the most contribute most to their deficit.). The key point is that there is a big transfer from today's workers to today's pensioners arising from deficits in these private schemes, hence it is drain on country's finances.

Koicarp

Government have put up new pension calculators here
http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/agenda-calculator/
for the nhs scheme. Not sure how accurate their predictions will be- I was sure I saw somewhere that the predictions were based on pay rises of RPI+2% per year- but cannot find that now.
For the record anyway the calculator predicts that I will, lose £2011 on the new scheme's annual pension, down from £14174 (at 60) to £12163 (at 60)- if working until age 68 I will gain £4500 per annum, after 8 years additional payment of £34560 (gross-at today's pay rate) and 18 years of increased payments from next february.

Geoffo_M

CLAPTON wrote: »

I was chatting to one of my doctor friends about the pension issues

He was complaining that by next year he would have to stop paying into the NHS pension fund as he will have reached the life time limit on pension contributions.
I felt so sorry for him I had to buy him a pint.

Doctors are a special case, they are overpaid so much now after Labour bodging up & handing them far to much cash increase. The avaerage GP I think is now on 120k, some on £300k I read, it's madness, they're worth being well-paid, but not that well-paid. I don't think doctors would have the nerve to take industrial action, they know how their bread is buttered

CLAPTON

hugheskevi wrote: »

At the macro level, you have a transfer from today's workers to today's pensioners, just like public service pensions. Quite how that transfer is distributed varies, just as it does for tax-payer funding (highest earners pay more of it, just like those that use Royal Mail the most contribute most to their deficit.). The key point is that there is a big transfer from today's workers to today's pensioners arising from deficits in these private schemes, hence it is drain on country's finances.

well actually at the macro level ALL pensioners' income is a transfer from today's workers to today's pensioners.

this is obvioulsy so, as pensioners (well the retired) are by definition unproductive and produce nothing

this is understood by every economist only only few others.

the MECANISMs of the transfer are different for funded and unfunded scehmes
funded schemes are provisioned by workers producing profit to feed pension funds that feed pensioners and forgoing some of the fruits of their labour
unfunded schemes are provisioned by workers paying tqxes and so forgoing some of the fruits of the labour

for any given level of aggravate pensioners income it makes no real difference whether they are funded or unfunded schemes