Bishop Bashes Boomers

Old_Slaphead

Percy1983 wrote: »

It is but those near to retirement can continue in the final salary scheme, in short there is many boomers will get more years in the final salary scheme after the door has been closed on the young.

I think your angst would be better directed at the huge inequalities in the pension system as a whole (ie many 'baby boomers' are suffering massively because of the effects of QE on annuity rates) rather than focussing on a few older public servants who have the benefit of a few extra years of final salary guarantee.

BTW many of the DB scheme younger members moving on to career average will have the benefit of increasing annual accruals (ie some public sector employees are moving from 1/60th to 1/43rd accrual which will significantly increase their pension - even if they have to wait a bit longer for it)

ruggedtoast

roddydogs wrote: »

Yes but we didnt have computers, mobiles, flat screens, holidays abroad till much later in life than the moaners, and everything was much dearer in real terms than now (except houses) 23" colour tv in 1975=£230, 4 channels, no remote, (about 5 weeks average wage then) washing m/c about the same, cars, holidays abroad, clothes were much dearer in real terms then, oh and also life expectancy is now longer. Would you REALLY swap places.?

Considering 4 weeks rent costs about 5 weeks average wage now, I don't think you were too badly off.

I think if its a choice between being able to afford a tv and being able to afford somewhere to live most people would happily choose the latter.

This is the common misperception with boomers, you all seem to assume that having smart phones and gadgets makes young people much happier than they actually do.

And as far as this paradigm goes, I know far more boomers toting around expensive iPads in fancy leather cases than I do younger people. As a generation you have far more money than anyone else does, largely due to young people having to pay you rent to exist in places you occupied for nothing.

System

If the bishop and his supporters here are right, then there is a catastrophic problem that will never be fixed by tinkering with supply and demand or by trying to make the haves feel guilty about the have-nots.

The obvious answer is to nationalise all land and housing, and form workers' soviets to distribute it purely according to need. But no one actually wants to solve the problem, because there is too much political capital to be made from exploiting the grievances.

StevieJ

Percy1983 wrote: »

It is but those near to retirement can continue in the final salary scheme, in short there is many boomers will get more years in the final salary scheme after the door has been closed on the young.

I had a quick look at that, are your accrual rates not being reduced from 1/80th to 1/60th? seems like a good deal for the younger lower paid (not flying up the scales) to me, not as good for the managers though. I think there will be many private sector workers looking with envy at your future pension so don't let greed cloud your vision

Most schemes just offer 1/80th of earnings for every year worked. This is less generous, but remember it is 1/80th of their final salary, rather than 1/60th of "average earnings". As most people's salary increases during their working life this means most people get bigger pensions from final salary arrangements, – particularly well paid "high fliers" such as hospital consultants etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8870505/The-real-truth-about-public-sector-pensions.html

olly300

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Considering 4 weeks rent costs about 5 weeks average wage now, I don't think you were too badly off.

I think if its a choice between being able to afford a tv and being able to afford somewhere to live most people would happily choose the latter.

This is the common misperception with boomers, you all seem to assume that having smart phones and gadgets makes young people much happier than they actually do.

And as far as this paradigm goes, I know far more boomers toting around expensive iPads in fancy leather cases than I do younger people. As a generation you have far more money than anyone else does, largely due to young people having to pay you rent to exist in places you occupied for nothing.

That's because older people have the spare cash.

BTW I've got a TV in front of me that cost £100. I use it as an additional monitor.

StevieJ

olly300 wrote: »

It's the NIMBY group that are the problem and unfortunately lots of the older generation fit into this group.

As do lots of the younger generation if they think it is going to cost them money, touche

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

I had a quick look at that, are your accrual rates not being reduced from 1/80th to 1/60th? l

Accrual rates are going up for civil servants to 1/43rd, NHS 1/54th, Police 1/55th etc !

Although pension ages are going up, the actual amount of pension paid is being significantly increased - meaning many will still be able to retire earlier and, even with actuarial reductions, they will not be much worse off!

I don't believe that the recent changes in public sector pensions will save very much money and despite the Government's 25 year tamper free pledge I can't see it being too long before further changes need to be made.

Percy1983

StevieJ wrote: »

I had a quick look at that, are your accrual rates not being reduced from 1/80th to 1/60th? seems like a good deal for the younger lower paid (not flying up the scales) to me, not as good for the managers though. I think there will be many private sector workers looking with envy at your future pension so don't let greed cloud your vision

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8870505/The-real-truth-about-public-sector-pensions.html

I am not complaining about the system I have moved onto its still a great deal and is worth the lessor salary to get it, my point is why should a boomer get an extra 5 years in the better scheme than me purely because they where born before me?

Old_Slaphead

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am not complaining about the system I have moved onto its still a great deal and is worth the lessor salary to get it, my point is why should a boomer get an extra 5 years in the better scheme than me purely because they where born before me?

Why should a woman currently aged 62 get a state pension from the age of 60 while a woman currently aged 56 has to wait until 66

It ain't fair and life sometimes sucks - you have to deal with it!

vivatifosi

Percy1983 wrote: »

How does that work, I am in the same pension, I was given a date then it ended and went average pay, why can't that apply to the older people, all years in the final salary scheme are safe and remain final salary, they would just have a few years of average at the end which would bring it down slightly.

I am a boomer (just) and I'm in an average salary scheme. Actually for some people they are a better option as they enable you to go part time at the end of your working life and phase your way into retirement.

Aren't your accrued benefits protected?