Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Andy_L

dshart wrote: »

I thought the figures worked out that lower paid workers had more benefit from a career average scheme rather than a final salary scheme.

No, they lose out less (or do about the same depending on the details) than those who progress up the career ladder

Old_Slaphead

NAR wrote: »

They do if they work the extra 5 years! Why should they?

Because the world, unlike many in the public sector, has changed. People are healthier & living longer. Longer retirements cost lots of money and it's hardly fair to expect the younger generation to foot all the extra cost.

If you're so desperate not to work any extra you'll have option of taking an early pension with penalty. The amount you draw will still be higher than most get in the private sector.

Zelazny

Andy_L wrote: »

No, they lose out less (or do about the same depending on the details) than those who progress up the career ladder

Anyone who's pay rises less than inflation will get a higher pension under career average than under Final Salary. It's not very likely that anyone's pension will rise slower than inflation, but it's possible I guess.

hugheskevi

They do if they work the extra 5 years! Why should they?

Where does 5 years come from?

Most have a Normal Pension age of 60 now (more recent joiners, 65) depending on scheme.

The new Normal Pension Age will be set equal to State Pension age, with protection for those close to NRA.

Given the announced increase in State Pension age to 67 from 2026-28, in practice that means that most will move to a Normal Pension age of 67 or 68, ie, 7 or 8 years? Which in practice is likely to be a few years higher by the time they get there, taking into account a few more increases in future?

Gracchus_Babeuf

CLAPTON wrote: »

the public sector pensions are much better than the poorer private sector pensions
so it certainly makes sense to have a productive an far reaching investigation of what the appropriate pension provision should be for all workers

sadly no-one seems to be interestd in doing so

Indeed. But the current government is terrified of telling the private sector what to do - the Conservative mentality is 'laissez faire' capitalism and any intervention would be frowned on. It's ideological.

dshart

worldwheeler wrote: »

This is surely, the banks lent to people who could not repay. The banks should have held responsibility, and the hit, for this practice. After all when you go to borrow the risk is on the lender as they are the financial experts. Or, lots of tyre fitters, shelf stackers, teachers, secretaries, ect walked into banks and bamboozled financial experts into leading them £400,000+ for a house. The 84% of RBS the tax payers own is purely the toxic assets that will not be recouped let alone pay any profit. This has been a massive theft from the people of lots and lots of countries of the world to the benefit of the people who run and control the entire system.

Research: where does money come from? who owns a country's central bank? what is fractional reserve banking? what, or who, controls the "business cycle"?

Its easy to just blame the banks and not accept any responsibility ourselves. Many people knew they would struggle to pay the loans they took out but still took them because of the profit they could see in house price rises. If they were turned down by one bank they just went to another till they got what they wanted. They fudged their earnings and self certified all in agreement with the banks to get what they wanted, but now when things go wrong it is easy to say the banks were to blame, they should have told us we could not afford it, they should not have let us borrow so much. Many people warned at the time that it was unsustainable but did we listen?

I can agree with you about the people who control the system and how in order for them to keep control they need to keep us enslaved to money. I have read some of the research you talk about and it does make frightening reading. But you will also know from such research that the world financial system is on the brink of collapse and the whole system of living on credit has to change. To this end it is wise that the country's debt is reduced and the sooner the better because the outcome of financial collapse is unthinkable. The system may be wrong and flawed but till we can replace it with a better system we have to work within this system.

I guess the only other way to bring about the changes required is to run headlong into financial collapse and see what comes out of it. But that is a huge risk and could lead to many years of hardship worse than in many third world countries (I say worse because many of us here have never had to experience those type of conditions and so could not cope).

dshart

BTW what are all the people who support the strikes doing on here at this time, shouldn't they be out manning the picket lines and attending rallies to show their support rather than taking the day off to post on here and do their christmas shopping.

Gracchus_Babeuf

UglyMug wrote: »

Raising the State pension and reducing these Public Sector Pension would be a good start.
I didn't notice any Public Sector worker going on Strike when it was suggested their State Pension was increased by £40 per week.

Very interesting point. Personallly I am puzzled as to why the government hasn't gone the whole way and introduced money puchase pensions for the whole public sector. The savings could then be invested in improving the state pension - this would be fairer to everybody. Why can't all those Oxbridge educated mandarins milling around the Chancellor grasp this simple concept?

Andy_L

Zelazny wrote: »

Anyone who's pay rises less than inflation will get a higher pension under career average than under Final Salary. It's not very likely that anyone's pension will rise slower than inflation, but it's possible I guess.

Well with a 2 year pay freeze & now 2 years of 1% it's heading that way :-)

IMO a big risk to the government of the new proposed scheme is that the explicit annual statement of wage increases for pension indexation is going to make it tricky to justify pay rises below that number

Gracchus_Babeuf

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes I rather favour the continental approach to pensions

larger taxpayer funded pension for all workers and less occupational provision (both state and private)

I agree 100%. If the government offered a basic state pension of £210 a week as opposed to £105, most people would not mind waiting until 67 to claim it, because then they could focus on saving enough money to cover them for the missing years between their chosen retirement age and the government one - and maybe have some funds left to supplement the state pension.