Osborne loses his nerve in the face of Union solidarity

discoass

FTBFun wrote: »

Excuse the pun, but armed forces pensions are effectively bulletproof - it'd be one heck of a PR gaffe to take these away from "Our Boys/Girls".

The amount of money wasted in the forces is unbelievable.
Been able to draw a sizeable pension at 40 is crazy and expensive

wotsthat

FTBFun wrote: »

Excuse the pun, but armed forces pensions are effectively bulletproof - it'd be one heck of a PR gaffe to take these away from "Our Boys/Girls".

There is an argument though that pensions should be paid at pensionable age even if a full pension rights have been accrued well in advance of this.

Giving a half pension to someone at the age of 40 has always seemed a little strange to me. These people are young, fit and healthy - they should be going into the job market motivated to achieve their potential. I know of a couple that just see the pension as a buffer so that they can take less rewarding positions - bit depressing really.

Road_Hog

headoutthesand wrote: »

Public sector employees are having to pay more out their salary from April 2012 (with no choice in the matter). They will pay more but have their pensions reduced in order to clear the government deficit that has more or less come from bailing out the banks.

Can you imagine if everyone, both public and private workers, in the country was told that they were losing this money out their paypack and that there was nothing they could do about it

This is the problem with public sector workers, they don't live in the real world.

Wake up chum, what do you think has been happening to company pensions since Gordon Brown's £5 bn a year tax raid?

That's right, they've been closed to new entrants/employees, they've been changed from defined benefit to defined contribution, the retirement age has gone up and so has the employee contribution amount.

Yes, we in the private sector have been hit hard and there is nothing we can do about, if we were to strike, we'd be sacked. So get used to it and start taking the medicine we've had to have for the last 15 years. Your pension is unfunded and I as a taxpayer don't want to be picking up the tab, go back and ask Gordon Brown why he didn't take action when he became Chancellor and why in the boom years he didn't put some money away instead of spending it all.

tartanterra

discoass wrote: »

Think they should look at military pensions first tbh.how can u justify getting a pension at the age of 40 in somecases ,why not make it payable at 60 this would save a hell of a lot of money .

discoass wrote: »

The amount of money wasted in the forces is unbelievable.
Been able to draw a sizeable pension at 40 is crazy and expensive

Before posting half cocked claims, I suggest you do some basic research.

The AFPS was changed in 2005.

AFPS05 offers an immediate pension only for those who leave having reached age 55 or beyond; anybody leaving the Services before they reach age 55 (even if it is only one day prior) are, providing they have completed at least two years' qualifying service, awarded a preserved pension payable at age 65.

I believe it is about to be reviewed again.

Road_Hog

dunstonh wrote: »

The public sector pensions were once seen as a reward for a working life in public service and getting a low pay during that period. I doubt anyone would have an issue if that was still the case. However, in the Labour years, the public sector was bloated with unnecessary administration jobs, often very well paid (and usually higher than bankers) and public sector pay went up at a faster rate than private sector pay.

So, the public sector lost some of that goodwill that used to exist.

This (the above) plus Gordon Brown raiding company pensions (and so giving companies an excuse to withdraw from pensions), has eroded the goodwill of the private sector, where previously the pensions were accepted as a counterbalance of low pay. However, the low pay (public sector) has gone, company pensions have almost gone and wage deflation in the private sector now means that the public sector are at the very least as good, if not better off than most private employees, with better job protection.

julieq

The fact is that "tory boy" Osborne is just implementing proposals created during a review of public sector finances by a Labour Peer and which still give a tremendous pension deal in comparison to the deals private sector workers get. The issue the unions are negotiating is the level to which the shock of the changes is cushioned to the lower paid workers during the transition.

And let's kill this myth that bankers caused the deficit. It's nonsense. Excessive public spending against unsustainable growth assumptions by the last government caused the deficit. Contrary to New Labour dogma, there wasn't an end to boom and bust. Public sector workers would to well to show a little humility, given that in the private sector many of them would be viewed as expensive overhead and removed from the payroll: if they want to stay in jobs and keep generous pension deals at the expense of the private sector, then working effectively and improving productivity is probably a sensible step in the direction of self preservation.

Just saying.

discoass

Road_Hog wrote: »

This is the problem with public sector workers, they don't live in the real world.

Wake up chum, what do you think has been happening to company pensions since Gordon Brown's £5 bn a year tax raid?

That's right, they've been closed to new entrants/employees, they've been changed from defined benefit to defined contribution, the retirement age has gone up and so has the employee contribution amount.

Yes, we in the private sector have been hit hard and there is nothing we can do about, if we were to strike, we'd be sacked. So get used to it and start taking the medicine we've had to have for the last 15 years. Your pension is unfunded and I as a taxpayer don't want to be picking up the tab, go back and ask Gordon Brown why he didn't take action when he became Chancellor and why in the boom years he didn't put some money away instead of spending it all.

what happens when these public sector jobs ie teachers/nurses/police become unatrractive because theres no extra incentive to do them,we`ll just ship them in from abroad and have to pay double just to fill the posts ,that`ll work :P

discoass

tartanterra wrote: »

Before posting half cocked claims, I suggest you do some basic research.

The AFPS was changed in 2005.

AFPS05 offers an immediate pension only for those who leave having reached age 55 or beyond; anybody leaving the Services before they reach age 55 (even if it is only one day prior) are, providing they have completed at least two years' qualifying service, awarded a preserved pension payable at age 65.

I believe it is about to be reviewed again.

what about pre2005 thats still alot of personelle
if they can change teachers/nurses then why not military

plus its non contributary so still a good deal

julieq

discoass wrote: »

what happens when these public sector jobs ie teachers/nurses/police become unatrractive because theres no extra incentive to do them,we`ll just ship them in from abroad and have to pay double just to fill the posts ,that`ll work :P

With youth unemployment at record levels? Do you honestly think no-one would want these jobs or be able to train for them?

Incredible. If you ever get out into the real world you're in for some harsh surprises.

Road_Hog

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They were sustainable two years ago when this was last costed and agreed.

No they weren't, it has been known since the mid '90s that they were unsustainable. Two years ago was just round one. My company pension used to be non contributory. It went to 2.5% in 2003 (roughly) and has gone up in stages to 8.5% (I don't work there anymore, so I don't know what the steps were). I would imagine it will be 10% shorty. Retirement was raised from 60 to 62, and I know they're trying to switch people from 1/60th to 1/80th. New employees are on defined contribution, not defined benefit (so no final salary).

Now, as I mentioned in threads earlier this week (where I asked you if you were public sector but you avoided the question), can I have my 25% back please.