Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

Zelazny

MikeR71 wrote: »

Aren't you guys missing something? The money we are asked to pay in increased contributions does NOT go into the pension pot. FACT.

That's the problem though - there is no pension pot. This has historically served two purposes:

(i) It means that the government can spend any money that's taken in contributions that is in excess of the pension paid out this year
(ii) It means that the government can promise lovely gold plated benefits to the public sector workers, and knows that it's not their problem that the country can't afford it as they likely won't be in power when the payments are due.

Of course that was fine as long as the country had some money. Now we don't and people are starting to realise that (ii) is unsustainable.

I agree with Le73Uq86Uv - there should be a fund and the government should be required to fund it to the levels that are necessary to provide the benefits that have been promised. This may take a few years to set up. This would show how expensive the benefits really are and let people get an idea of what they're getting for their money.

In the meantime the government needs to spend less money - right away. Currently government spending is over 50% of GDP. That's more than even Gordon Brown thought was a good idea (his golden rule reckoned on 40%, until he started to spend more than that). Since the coalition took power, spending has risen in real terms - this must be stopped!

Le73Uq86Uv

Zelazny wrote: »

In the meantime the government needs to spend less money - right away. Currently government spending is over 50% of GDP. That's more than even Gordon Brown thought was a good idea (his golden rule reckoned on 40%, until he started to spend more than that). Since the coalition took power, spending has risen in real terms - this must be stopped!

But, they do seem to have money to give away to others like Ireland.

I don't want to get into the discusion that we had to, but if I or you had no money, we have no money and could not give any away even if it was for our own family.

And has Lord Hutton mentioned if people stop paying into pensions because they are to expensive that is not what the government want either, and if more and more people stop paying into the public pensions they will become even more and more unafordable.

I can see a mass exoduse from some public pensions with members taking ealy retirement.

dunstonh

But, they do seem to have money to give away to others like Ireland.

It wasnt a gift. It was a loan and there were good commercial reasons for doing it given the close link in the Irish and British economies. Aid to India on the other hand is a lot harder to justify.

And has Lord Hutton mentioned if people stop paying into pensions because they are to expensive that is not what the government want either, and if more and more people stop paying into the public pensions they will become even more and more unafordable.

People that are doing that are just being silly. I would bet that most do not realise that the amount on their payslip isnt actually the amount they are paying as they dont realise the value of tax relief or lower NI.

The pensions are not being made too expensive either. in most cases, the net contributions will be around 4-6%. Levels that someone without a defined benefit scheme would have to multiply by around 5 times to get the same benefit.

gfplux

Skipping through all the posts one theme for me has emerged.
Most posters FROM the public sector describe waste and inefficiency in their particular organisation.
Simple answer PRIVATISATION.
That will get rid of of waste, inefficiency and poor performing people.
Please don't suggest the customer will suffer. Most private company's with a public face provide a good service to their customers.
I am not talking about company's with no public face like water or gas but company's like Tesco, Virgin, McDo etc.

sheffield_lad

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

I can see a mass exoduse from some public pensions with members taking early retirement.

You must be joking, yes the stupid one's who believed the unions. (we had a teacher a few pages back who thought her pension would be £7k and no lump sum). lol

Do you really think people will retire early because they have been asked for a 3% contribution rise lol

to sum up 'its not as good as it used to be but bloody hell its still a fantastic deal compared with whats out there'

jem16

howee wrote: »

You must be joking, yes the stupid one's who believed the unions.

Nothing to do with the unions and all to do with whether or not they can afford the extra 3%. Like a lot of people they seem to have every penny accounted for and spent long before the pay packet hits the bank.

Do you really think people will retire early because they have been asked for a 3% contribution rise lol

There could be some who are close to retiral who will decide to get out before the changes take place.

cyclonebri1

howee wrote: »

You must be joking, yes the stupid one's who believed the unions. (we had a teacher a few pages back who thought her pension would be £7k and no lump sum). lol

Do you really think people will retire early because they have been asked for a 3% contribution rise lol

to sum up 'its not as good as it used to be but bloody hell its still a fantastic deal compared with whats out there'

At least somone understands, the proposed changes arn't retrospective, ie, they dont affect past contributions and benefits.

This is the single most understood point of the whole issue

BobQ

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

At least somone understands, the proposed changes arn't retrospective, ie, they dont affect past contributions and benefits.

This is the single most understood point of the whole issue

I think this depends on how you define retrospective and its at the heart of the judicial review arguments.

I have a preserved civil service pension that I earned many years ago. The value of this pension since I left has been preserved by RPI. In a few years when I draw it, the pension with have less value than I was expecting and will grow at a lower rate than I had been promised. Yet my pension was earned 30 years ago.

So I think its a retrospective change. Had my private sector pension fund informed me that they were repaying some of my pension fund to my employer because times are hard I would have been equally displeased.

But I have to say that the Government's changes are very clever since it has convinced people like you that they are behaving in an honest way!

antonic

By April 2011 I had accumulated 22.5 years (non) pension contributions of my mine which are protected AND I am entitled to take my benefits at the age of 60.

After April 2012 I will have to pay 1.5% contributions to my pension (which I dont object to) and this will cost me approx £30/month, and these benefits I cant get till I retire at 67 (or whatever age the Government decides !).

So can you imagine the possibilities for mistakes when I get parts of my Civil Service Pension @ 60 & 67 - I can !.

Oh, and according to the official service pension calculator my lump sum has gone down by £9k.

BobQ wrote: »

I think this depends on how you define retrospective and its at the heart of the judicial review arguments.

I have a preserved civil service pension that I earned many years ago. The value of this pension since I left has been preserved by RPI. In a few years when I draw it, the pension with have less value than I was expecting and will grow at a lower rate than I had been promised. Yet my pension was earned 30 years ago.

So I think its a retrospective change. Had my private sector pension fund informed me that they were repaying some of my pension fund to my employer because times are hard I would have been equally displeased.

But I have to say that the Government's changes are very clever since it has convinced people like you that they are behaving in an honest way!

BobQ

howee wrote: »

You must be joking, yes the stupid one's who believed the unions. (we had a teacher a few pages back who thought her pension would be £7k and no lump sum). lol

Do you really think people will retire early because they have been asked for a 3% contribution rise lol

to sum up 'its not as good as it used to be but bloody hell its still a fantastic deal compared with whats out there'

I doubt that it will make the well paid say >50K do anything but tighten their belts knowing they are still on a good deal. But those on lower and middle incomes may decide that they cannot afford it. There is a safety net for the very low paid I understand but those above this with large mortgage or debts may be forced to make this difficult choice. Sure it makes no economic sense to do it but some will do it.

Those close to retirement with a long career are probably considering doing it for a different reason since a pension increasing at CPI might be preferable to a salary that is not keeping up with inflation. This will apply particularly to those capable of doing some part time work (or baby sitting their grandchildren)