Pension Age Going Up and Strikes Public Sector

gadgetmind

MikeR71 wrote: »

The Unions have repeatedly asked the government to produce the figures that shows the pensions are in deficit as one of the conditions of the talks and the government continually refuses to do so. The Unions also asked the government to guarantee that the rise in contributions will go into pension pots that pay pensioners living longer.

Try asking better questions next time, ones that actually show an understanding of how public sector pensions are (or rather aren't!) funded, what hypothecation of tax is, and why HMG avoid it like the plague.

If you want to switch to having everyone having their own pension pot which is then used to provide that person a pension, then be *very* careful what you wish for. Even having the pubic sector as a whole having to build their own pot separate to other government funds would leave that sector's pensions in a DEEP hole that only MASSIVE contributions could even start to fill.

You don't have to ask the government anything to understand this, just do some thinking and push some numbers around for a while.

bendix

gadgetmind wrote: »

Try asking better questions next time, ones that actually show an understanding of how public sector pensions are (or rather aren't!) funded, what hypothecation of tax is, and why HMG avoid it like the plague.

If you want to switch to having everyone having their own pension pot which is then used to provide that person a pension, then be *very* careful what you wish for. Even having the pubic sector as a whole having to build their own pot separate to other government funds would leave that sector's pensions in a DEEP hole that only MASSIVE contributions could even start to fill.

You don't have to ask the government anything to understand this, just do some thinking and push some numbers around for a while.

I think what gadgetmind is trying to say is: "Mike, stop being a bloody idiot, and use your tiny public sector brain."

Don't thank me gadget . . i like to help.

Koicarp

bendix wrote: »

Except noone is seeking to steal the fifth car, are they. The government is simply asking them to pay a little more for it, and SIGNIFICANTLY less than carowners in the private sector have to pay for the same car.

What gets me is that public sector workers who claim that a £16000 pension for a £37000 job, simply can't understand - or refuse to understand - that a similar pension entitlement in the private sector would have meant they would have had to build a pension pot of half a million pounds through their own saving? It's like they hear the words, but it doesn't seap through into their thinking.

You are quoting my pension figures there and suggesting I refuse to understand- yet above I state that I thought the 600k figure may be 20% high- ie closer to your 500k figure. I've then thanked another user who was able to show that in fact 600k may well be correct.
You state that we are being asked to pay a little more, ignoring that we will get a lot less than we were expecting. As stated above it's human nature to show displeasure.
In your later post, you refer to the tiny minds of the public sector worker.
I too wonder when the quality of debate on MSE will improve.

DCodd

bendix wrote: »

Except noone is seeking to steal the fifth car, are they. The government is simply asking them to pay a little more for it, and SIGNIFICANTLY less than carowners in the private sector have to pay for the same car.

What gets me is that public sector workers who claim that a £16000 pension for a £37000 job, simply can't understand - or refuse to understand - that a similar pension entitlement in the private sector would have meant they would have had to build a pension pot of half a million pounds through their own saving? It's like they hear the words, but it doesn't seap through into their thinking.

Really? Where do you get that from. All the figures available actualy suggest that the Private sector employee pays LESS than the public sector employee for their DB pensions, on average, like for like 5% in the private sector compared to 5.5% in the public sector, hence the Unilever strike.

chucknorris

DCodd wrote: »

Really? Where do you get that from. All the figures available actualy suggest that the Private sector employee pays LESS than the public sector employee for their DB pensions, on average, like for like 5% in the private sector compared to 5.5% in the public sector, hence the Unilever strike.

But there aren't as many DB pensions that are accepting new entrants in the private sector as the public sector (certainly as a percentage), so my wife tells me (she's an actuary). I actually work in the public sector and believe me even with the changes it is a great pension to have.

gadgetmind

DCodd wrote: »

the Private sector employee pays LESS than the public sector employee for their DB pensions

DB pensions are heading towards extinction in the private sector because they are unaffordable.

DCodd

gadgetmind wrote: »

Try asking better questions next time, ones that actually show an understanding of how public sector pensions are (or rather aren't!) funded, what hypothecation of tax is, and why HMG avoid it like the plague.

If you want to switch to having everyone having their own pension pot which is then used to provide that person a pension, then be *very* careful what you wish for. Even having the pubic sector as a whole having to build their own pot separate to other government funds would leave that sector's pensions in a DEEP hole that only MASSIVE contributions could even start to fill.

You don't have to ask the government anything to understand this, just do some thinking and push some numbers around for a while.

The Private sector DB pensions do not require Huge contributions so why would the Public sector pensions? If you mean that the contributions that were not met by the Government and the member contributions that were used elsewhere would have to paid back into the schemes, then yes it would cost a huge amonut of money but why would you ask the members to pay those contributions for second time?

DCodd

gadgetmind wrote: »

DB pensions are heading towards extinction in the private sector because they are unaffordable.

Not really, the ONLY private sector pensions that are meeting their costs and actualy running at a surplus are the 1400+active DB schemes.

DCodd

chucknorris wrote: »

But there aren't as many DB pensions in the private sector as the public sector (certainly as a percentage), so my wife tells me (she's an actuary). I actually work in the piblic sector and believe me even with the changes it is a great pension to have.

According to the ONS there are still 1400+ active DB private sector schemes.

gadgetmind

Koicarp wrote: »

I've then thanked another user who was able to show that in fact 600k may well be correct.

As the stock market can drop 50% in a year, and gilt yields can halve in a decade, arguing about the odd 20% makes little difference.

Those funding their own pensions, rather than assuming that the money for their old age will drift down from some magic money tree, need to try and plan for worst case scenarios such as the one we're currently living through.

Trust me, the grass really isn't greener on the other side of this particular fence, so please try and chew your cud in quiet contemplation.