Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Andy_L

paparossco wrote: »

Sorry I don't get it. If the scheme has been in surplus since 1948 and it is agreed that contributions go up to cover any future shortfall then what past pension accrual? I'm not contradicting you, I just don't know what you mean. Oh while I'm here what is AIUI?

"As I Understand it"

When talking about pensions a surplus means the scheme has more assests than the liabilities it has to pay out (ie all the pensions employees have accrued).

An unfunded scheme, like the NHS, can never be in that position as it has no assets. The fact that, at this pricise moment in time, the contributions from both employee & employer are more than the pensions being paid out is something of an irrelevance, as time passes & the demographics of the members change it will move into the oposite situation (like, AIUI, the Civil Service scheme is at the moment)

The level of employee/er contributions is calculated, based on "pretend" investments into a nominal investment fund, and is set at what is needed to to pay for the benifits accrued in that year. If that calculation come in higher than a certain limit then, in the NHS scheme, employee contributions go up automatically to cover the shortfall.
However if those calculations, with the benifit of hindsight, were wrong (say due to unexpected increases in longevity) then the employees contribution does not automatically increase to cover that shortfall. Instead it is covered by the treasury (ie the taxpayer).

dshart

Moby wrote: »

You've said nothing new there. The banks are not to blame in isolation I know. We are all to blame in many ways for the way in which 'we' have been prepared to take out unsustainable credit. The point I'm making though is it starts at the top and the changes need to be made at the top first. For far too long this country has been dependent on a financial services industry which is not sufficiently regulated. Interestingly Sarkozy today is leading the calls for international co-operation on these issues but our lot continually fall back on the financial services protectionist position. We need a complete change in attitude and values. Public service pensions are not the issue ....they are a distraction from the real issues!

The thing about the financial services industry is that London is one of the worlds major financial centres and this provides a lot of income and jobs in the economy. France and Germany would love to attract a lot of the finance industry away from London and this is why the government have to be careful how they handle the industry, because if they make it too difficult for them they will just close up shop and move elsewhere with a consequent effect on jobs and the economy.

You may hate the banks and blame them for a lot of the country's current woes but the country still needs to remain a major financial centre. I agree banks and financial institutions should be more responsible and lead by example with austerity measures, but the government runs a fine line keeping them content to stay working in the UK while at the same time trying to squeeze money out of them.

Remember the UK government have stated that they are reluctant to impose some restrictions on the financial institutions until there is international agreement, this is so the UK does not become uncompetitive in attracting the business. You could have the most regulated FS industry in the world but what good would it be if there was no FS industry.

CLAPTON

Andy_L wrote: »

"As I Understand it"

When talking about pensions a surplus means the scheme has more assests than the liabilities it has to pay out (ie all the pensions employees have accrued).

An unfunded scheme, like the NHS, can never be in that position as it has no assets. The fact that, at this pricise moment in time, the contributions from both employee & employer are more than the pensions being paid out is something of an irrelevance, as time passes & the demographics of the members change it will move into the oposite situation (like, AIUI, the Civil Service scheme is at the moment)

The level of employee/er contributions is calculated, based on "pretend" investments into a nominal investment fund, and is set at what is needed to to pay for the benifits accrued in that year. If that calculation come in higher than a certain limit then, in the NHS scheme, employee contributions go up automatically to cover the shortfall.
However if those calculations, with the benifit of hindsight, were wrong (say due to unexpected increases in longevity) then the employees contribution does not automatically increase to cover that shortfall. Instead it is covered by the treasury (ie the taxpayer).

if the opposite situation arises i.e. it turns out that the calculation shows it is in surplus, do the pensioners get an unexpected increase or is money refunded to the workers?

Andy_L

CLAPTON wrote: »

if the opposite situation arises i.e. it turns out that the calculation shows it is in surplus, do the pensioners get an unexpected increase or is money refunded to the workers?

I think some of the schemes have a collar as well as a cap - however unless we have a sudden pandemic of bird flu that kills off enough people to drop life expetancy dratically it isn't going to be reached

MikeR71

Money money money. Everything boils down to money at the end of the day. The bankers bring money to the economy so they deserve their millions, Clarkson brings money to BBC so he is worth his big idiotic mouth. Unfortunately dinner ladies and careworkers don't bring as much money so let's screw them to high heavens.

Yes we get it. Teachers, nurses, carers, firemen, etc. don't show any tangible benefits so how dare they earn £20k a year and still ask for a half decent pension in old age. In fact they are the source of all evil in our modern society and clearly a burden on the economy.

Zelazny

MikeR71 wrote: »

Yes we get it. Teachers, nurses, carers, firemen, etc. don't show any tangible benefits so how dare they earn £20k a year and still ask for a half decent pension in old age. In fact they are the source of all evil in our modern society and clearly a burden on the economy.

If they were all on £20k, I don't think anyone would be upset. The fact is that a policeman in the Met will start on more than £30k (no idea of other areas, but I doubt it's much lower).

I know a brand new teacher, just passed her teacher training and her first teaching job pays more than £28k.

Firefighters get £21k for the time that they're training, then jump to £28k once the start the job properly.

The median full time salary in the UK is around £25k. That means that around half of the working populace is on less than that. I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of the jobs that pay less than that are dirty, grubby jobs, or ones that demean and belittle you. Retail is a good example - the people who work in stores, waiting on ungrateful customers and putting up with the rudeness, theft and sheer bloodymindedness that a lot of people display in stores without thinking about it are usually on little more than minimum wage. I know a lot of stores even in London where the manager is on less than £25k - and that's not an easy job.

It's not that people think that teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc don't deserve to be well paid, but it should be something that's worked towards. If they had a starting pay of £20k and worked up from there then there would be a lot less complaint, even if their salary increased a lot quicker than in other areas. I certainly do believe that a teacher who's good at their job and has been teaching for 20 years should be on bloody good money, but one that's literally just qualified should not be on more than the median wage.

I guess there's a belief in the private sector that pay rises reward those who do their job well. If you start on high pay, you don't have to do a good job and have no understanding of what it means to be "normal" - you're sorted even if you're crap (and the difficulty there is in sacking people from the public sector just makes this worse).

NAR

The Government were seeking additional contributions from next April for all those who earn £15k or more. I have heard this is to be significantly increased, to £25k or £30k, during current negotiations and if true could be enough to quell the industrial action.

jem16

Zelazny wrote: »

I know a brand new teacher, just passed her teacher training and her first teaching job pays more than £28k.

Where is she teaching then?

Point M1 of the teacher scale in England is £21,588 which is where NQTs are placed. In Scotland NQTs earn £21,438.

Zelazny

jem16 wrote: »

Where is she teaching then?

Point M1 of the teacher scale in England is £21,588 which is where NQTs are placed. In Scotland NQTs earn £21,438.

I don't know which school, but it's in London - and http://www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-scales.aspx suggests that inner London teachers all start on at least £27k.

jem16

Zelazny wrote: »

I don't know which school, but it's in London - and http://www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-scales.aspx suggests that inner London teachers all start on at least £27k.

Yes Inner London would be £27k but I don't think we can really compare the London weighting with the normal starting salary for teachers.