Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

atush

How soon people forget who bailed out the banks and who signed off on Fred the Shread and others getting away with gold plated pensions and no jail time.

It was Labour.

ILW

How much of the current problem is caused by "the bankers", as opposed to a decade or so of just spending more than we earned?

Lokolo

ILW wrote: »

How much of the current problem is caused by "the bankers", as opposed to a decade or so of just spending more than we earned?

Is that a rhetorical question or an actual question?

ILW

Lokolo wrote: »

Is that a rhetorical question or an actual question?

It was an actual question. The unions seem to be saying that it is all the bankers fault and their members are having to pay the price. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the banking crisis just exposed a problem that had been there all the time.

2gorgeousgirls

Charliecherry wrote: »

This example of emma, retired at the ripe old age of 48 from the public sector (fire service)....on earnings of £30k...
pension;£105k handshake and £21k for the rest of his natural linked to rpi.....She could potentialy spend longer in retirement than She did working and
be paid more in pension than She ever received in wages;

THIS MADNESS MUST STOP

Is the above based on fact? In the public sector, I earn <£19,000, will have to wait until I'm well into my 60s to retire and then I will get <£5,500 with a lump sum of <£26,000. The figures quoted above seem very high.

If they are correct, then there is a huge disparity between different sections of the public sector.

J_i_m

As good as the public sector pension currently is... I don't envisage being able to live on 6-8k a year, the lump payment would almost certainly go towards day to day living. I actually don't envisage being able to afford to retire until I reach basic state pension age anyway, what ever that will be in the future.

Andy_L

2gorgeousgirls wrote: »

Is the above based on fact? In the public sector, I earn <£19,000, will have to wait until I'm well into my 60s to retire and then I will get <£5,500 with a lump sum of <£26,000. The figures quoted above seem very high.

If they are correct, then there is a huge disparity between different sections of the public sector.

There are, fire & police have always had lower retirement ages to reflect the physical requiremnts of the job. As against that they do pay about twice the contributions of the rest. Althogh that example seems excessive - it may be a medical retirement rather than age

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446831

atush

ILW wrote: »

It was an actual question. The unions seem to be saying that it is all the bankers fault and their members are having to pay the price. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the banking crisis just exposed a problem that had been there all the time.

A lot of the problem was securitsed toxic debts from the USA where people borrowed money they couldn't pay back. There was some toxic debt here (125% FTB mtgs, BTL) that borught down NR and BB but the trouble the biggies like RBS got into wasn't even based on UK debt.

But you are right, we all spent more than we could afford, which is why so many didn't join the Public Service pensions and why so many didn't join Private sector ones or set up their own PPs as they were too busy living for today. And why thy don't have enough tucked away into savings to help out now.

thegirlintheattic

Under the new scheme, assuming I get to the top of my pay scale and work till I'm 68 I will get £9000 a year and no lump sum.

Assuming the same under the current scheme I would get £13,000 a year and a lump sum of £40,000.

This is assuming I work every day (excluding holidays etc.) till I'm 68 and don't take time off for children.

This is why public sector workers are upset, we are being robbed of what we thought we would get. I don't see being able to live off £9,000 a year so will have to take part-time work when I retire.

sheffield_lad

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Under the new scheme, assuming I get to the top of my pay scale and work till I'm 68 I will get £9000 a year and no lump sum.

Assuming the same under the current scheme I would get £13,000 a year and a lump sum of £40,000.

This is assuming I work every day (excluding holidays etc.) till I'm 68 and don't take time off for children.

This is why public sector workers are upset, we are being robbed of what we thought we would get. I don't see being able to live off £9,000 a year so will have to take part-time work when I retire.

Someone will come along and confirm this but I am almost certain your figures are wrong. Where did this information come from?