It's not just the public sector....

ruggedtoast

Road_Hog wrote: »

Well, I'm not okay with that, and you don't fund your pension, I do. So can I have my 25% of my council tax back please, that funds your pension that I do not wish to pay for.

I do not work for a local authority, nor am I retired, so I am not a beneficiary of "your" 25%.

Maybe you should take it up with your local authority though. they might be able to sort something out where they only collect 75% of your bins, teach 75% of your kids, or provide street lighting on 75% of your street.

RenovationMan

CLAPTON wrote: »

you seem to be debating the meaning of words here; as I'm sure you know almost evey company (except the very smallest outfits ) must by law offer a pension scheme; however most contribute zero to the pension.


and, without being too over dramatic, I find it disappointing that you seem to so readily accept that zero pension for many private sector workers is OK.

and of course funded schemes don't solve the issue of the 'burden' on future generations although they do create risk and uncertainty and unfairness.

That legislation isn't due to start until October 2012. However, don't let that stop you from building up your ad hominem argument. You seem very intent on putting words into my mouth in order to bolster your argument, but I haven't said anything about zero pensions for public sector workers, as well you know.

I think the 7% ER and 3% EE contribution suggestion I made seems fair.

Funded Money Purchase schemes do solve the issue of 'burden' on future generations because the pension is funded from the retirees own pension pot and not the public purse. The pension will be funded while the employee is in work and paid for by the taxpayer currently receiving the services provided by the public sector.

Andy_L

RenovationMan wrote: »

Funded Money Purchase schemes do solve the issue of 'burden' on future generations because the pension is funded from the retirees own pension pot and not the public purse. The pension will be funded while the employee is in work and paid for by the taxpayer currently receiving the services provided by the public sector.

Hoever the change between the 2 requires the current taxpayers to pay twice, once for the pension of the current generation of retirees and again for the contributions of the current generation of workers.

RenovationMan

Andy_L wrote: »

Hoever the change between the 2 requires the current taxpayers to pay twice, once for the pension of the current generation of retirees and again for the contributions of the current generation of workers.

Better to take the hit now rather than keep 'kicking the can down the road' (the phrase beloved by many on this board). Plus the country will not have a huge liability hanging over it with MP pensions like they do with FS pensions. The onus goes back onto the employee to worry about the performance of their pension pots rather than onto the taxpayer.

heathcote123

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Maybe you should take it up with your local authority though. they might be able to sort something out where they only collect 75% of your bins, teach 75% of your kids, or provide street lighting on 75% of your street.

I'm not sure they could make that much of an improvement overnight.

borkid

RenovationMan wrote: »

Except that the pension contributions are not held anywhere and so when the public sector workers retire their pensions are funded by tax payers. Interestingly enough, the people who will be paying for those currently employed in the public sector are our children; the future earners who will already be labouring under their student loans, high house prices and a large population of pensioners in the state pension system.

In the mis-quoted words of Vinny Gambini, "STATE PENSION, - student loan, high houseprices, public sector pensions, and let me see, what else can we pile on? Is there any more S4it we can pile on to the top of them? Is it possible? "

Local government pensions are from employee and employer contributions which are invested, the government can't get their greedy little hands on it. Others have paid into a pension scheme and the government have 'stolen' it to use as they wish, a bit like the state pension really. Very simplified view I know but that's the problem with this type of discussion. Not all public sector pensions are the same but 'the man/woman in the street' doesn't have reliable information to evaluate each individual one properly.

CLAPTON

RenovationMan wrote: »

That legislation isn't due to start until October 2012. However, don't let that stop you from building up your ad hominem argument. You seem very intent on putting words into my mouth in order to bolster your argument, but I haven't said anything about zero pensions for public sector workers, as well you know.

I think the 7% ER and 3% EE contribution suggestion I made seems fair.

Funded Money Purchase schemes do solve the issue of 'burden' on future generations because the pension is funded from the retirees own pension pot and not the public purse. The pension will be funded while the employee is in work and paid for by the taxpayer currently receiving the services provided by the public sector.

you are absolutely incorrect

all except the smallest firms are required by law to offer employees a pension scheme; this has been the law for years; most have zero take up from staff where the employer doesn't contribute anything

however the more recent legislation requires the employer to CONTRIBUTE (at least 3%) which is the change

if you are genuinely interested to know why there is virtually no difference between funded and unfunded schemes in terms of the burden on future generations I would be happy to explain

I accept is a counter intuitive but no less true and it worth learning about

gregg1

RenovationMan wrote: »

Except that the pension contributions are not held anywhere and so when the public sector workers retire their pensions are funded by tax payers. Interestingly enough, the people who will be paying for those currently employed in the public sector are our children; the future earners who will already be labouring under their student loans, high house prices and a large population of pensioners in the state pension system.

In the mis-quoted words of Vinny Gambini, "STATE PENSION, - student loan, high houseprices, public sector pensions, and let me see, what else can we pile on? Is there any more S4it we can pile on to the top of them? Is it possible? "

And whose fault is that? The money SHOULD have been put aside by the Government to pay for the pensions (in fact there is still enough money to pay for these pensions out of what is paid in) but the Government have chosen to spend it elsewhere and now the public sector are paying the price for Government stupidity.

gregg1

ILW wrote: »

At the moment the public sector seem to believe that should be shielded from the problems in the world, whilst the majority of workers not in their "club" are forced to pay for this shield.

No - but they should be shielded from having their contracts altered without their consent. Public sector workers are suffering redundancies, pay cuts, pay freezes along with everyone else - do your homework!

RenovationMan

gregg1 wrote: »

And whose fault is that? The money SHOULD have been put aside by the Government to pay for the pensions (in fact there is still enough money to pay for these pensions out of what is paid in) but the Government have chosen to spend it elsewhere and now the public sector are paying the price for Government stupidity.

I agree, it's the fault of past the governments. Nothing to stop a future government adressign the issue, which is what I'm advocating.