LGPS changes who has interpreted it the right way

taktikback

Have you been following the news lately?. Have you any idea how unlikely it is that anyone -private or public, is going to be able to sustain the types of pension you are used to and would have us all aspire to?

I've heard this "race to the bottom" argument so many times now. It makes it sound like we've just got to make some kind of rational choice, and bingo, everything is going to be fine...

but it isn't fine..it's unsustainable, and if you're in the public sector, you get to be shielded from reality for a little longer, but the end result will be the same...

It's not a race to the bottom..it's gravity....ask the French...they think they can carry on with their social model ad infinitum...but the game is up...even for them...

hyubh

taktikback wrote: »

Have you been following the news lately?. Have you any idea how unlikely it is that anyone -private or public, is going to be able to sustain the types of pension you are used to and would have us all aspire to?

Aren't you the guy who thinks it's an outrage anyone would even consider removing the AVC/lump sum perk from your wife's LGPS pension...?

Southend1

taktikback wrote: »

Have you been following the news lately?. Have you any idea how unlikely it is that anyone -private or public, is going to be able to sustain the types of pension you are used to and would have us all aspire to?

I've heard this "race to the bottom" argument so many times now. It makes it sound like we've just got to make some kind of rational choice, and bingo, everything is going to be fine...

but it isn't fine..it's unsustainable, and if you're in the public sector, you get to be shielded from reality for a little longer, but the end result will be the same...

It's not a race to the bottom..it's gravity....ask the French...they think they can carry on with their social model ad infinitum...but the game is up...even for them...

Of course it's a choice. The money is there for everyone to have a decent retirement, if we choose to use it that way. Unfortunately most of the wealth is concentrated with a very small number of people who would rather hang on to it.

taktikback

hyubh wrote: »

Aren't you the guy who thinks it's an outrage anyone would even consider removing the AVC/lump sum perk from your wife's LGPS pension...?

Well, I'm the guy who you had pegged as a fat cat with a rich and privileged wife who was milking the LGPS for all it was worth...

..and I turned out to be an average middle manager, with a mortgage, kids in further education, and a hard working wife who puts away £100 per month in the LGPS AVC...

...I don't recall being outraged...but I did challenge your rather working class hero slant on saving for the future through AVCs because it concerned me that you might be putting off the very income group you seem to be championing...

...I'm very grateful for the existence of the LGPS, as anyone who has the opportunity to be in it should be, but I don't believe there is any contradiction in pointing out that it is a privilege, and posters should remember that -and not carp on about how the world owes them a living, because it doesn't - and private industry knows that only too well.

The 2014 LGPS is as good as can be expected, and will be watered down again in the future...but it will still probably be one of the best deals available.

Be grateful is all I am saying...

hyubh

taktikback wrote: »

Well, I'm the guy who you had pegged as a fat cat with a rich and privileged wife who was milking the LGPS for all it was worth...

Touchy! In the abstract you adopt the 'angry taxpayer' line... and in the concrete you moan about even the most mundane of possible reforms were they to effect your own family's finances (maybe, slightly).

..and I turned out to be an average middle manager, with a mortgage, kids in further education, and a hard working wife who puts away £100 per month in the LGPS AVC...

Oddly enough, I still think removing the AVC perk a reasonable thing to do. Can't think why, but your going on and on about about the two of you, if not living in a council estate, aren't not lord and lady of the manor either, isn't convincing me...

taktikback

Well, I'm not really trying to convince you -just trying not to be misrepresented

I think you're wrong about the AVC perk but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

The fact remains that this is a perk that is very valuable to those on modest salaries, and if it is on offer, we should be highlighting that. To suggest that it somehow threatens the fabric of the underlying scheme is frankly implausible. For the scheme to base it's assumptions on everyone commuting pension at an unfavorable rate doesn't make much sense and I'm sure the advisers to the scheme are not that daft, otherwise they would not have allowed the current AVC policy to be put in place.

What isn't quite so convincing is your position that you know what's best for the lower paid, when that advice essentially discourages them from helping themselves to improve their lot.

I'm not an angry tax payer. I'm trying to be realistic - I don't like hearing rhetoric that suggests not maintaining things as they are will "condemn millions of working poor and older people to survive through charity handouts and freeze to death in winter." as was mentioned in an earlier post. That is not a rational or supportable conclusion

Southend1

taktikback wrote: »

I'm not an angry tax payer. I'm trying to be realistic - I don't like hearing rhetoric that suggests not maintaining things as they are will "condemn millions of working poor and older people to survive through charity handouts and freeze to death in winter." as was mentioned in an earlier post. That is not a rational or supportable conclusion

Well the increase in people requiring charity handouts through food banks is a fact and "excess" winter deaths from cold is a fact.

So why wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that a living wage and decent pension provision are required in this country to put a stop to this?

hyubh

taktikback wrote: »

I think you're wrong about the AVC perk

I say it is pretty much unique to the LGPS - true. I say higher paid members (including your wife!) are far more likely to take out an AVC - true. I say the 12/1 commutation rate is there to assist the pension funds, and that the take up rate helps determine (albeit in a small way) employer contribution rates - true.

To suggest that it somehow threatens the fabric of the underlying scheme is frankly implausible.

Oddly enough, I have never claimed such a thing.

For the scheme to base it's assumptions on everyone commuting pension at an unfavorable rate

Yet another thing I haven't claimed. The current government is inclined to remove the perk to encourage commutation at the (actuarily unfavourable) standard rate, and as such, assist various funds' deficit reduction programmes, in a small but not insignificant way... and I agree with that.

What isn't quite so convincing is your position that you know what's best for the lower paid, when that advice essentially discourages them from helping themselves to improve their lot.

It is a fact AVCs are more likely to be taken out by the higher paid; it is a fact the rate at which standard pensions are commuted enters into actuaries' valuation calculations - I don't know why you are continuing to try and deny these things. That said, if the take up of AVCs were evenly distributed, I would still support abolishing them. Along with potentially other things, like spousal pensions as a part of the standard package (shock horror!)...

I'm trying to be realistic - I don't like hearing rhetoric that suggests not maintaining things as they are will "condemn millions of working poor and older people to survive through charity handouts and freeze to death in winter." as was mentioned in an earlier post.

Equally unrealistic is an attitude that LGPS deficits don't matter, because hey, it's all government funded, innit?

kidmugsy

hyubh wrote: »

Equally unrealistic is an attitude that LGPS deficits don't matter, because hey, it's all government funded, innit?

Everyone knows that all public sector defined benefit pension schemes have a Santa clause.

taktikback

You do like quoting "facts"- which is fine, but let's not carried away with the impression that these snippets represent a balanced argument.

Yes, I know more people taking out AVCs are higher paid - what we need to do is not patronise the lower paid by suggesting AVCs are not for them.. Why shouldn't they share in the prosperity of the fund too?

Hmm - no spousal pensions either - "as part of the standard package". So we need a two tier system -one for poor people and one for rich people? rich married people that is...just up my street by your way of thinking then?

As for LGPS deficits - well the LGPS themselves have rubbished the media hysteria about black holes and deficits. They say that they have positive cash flow in the next decade and are working to calculate what level of ongoing contributions will secure that for the long term.

So , unlike the civil service schemes -and the basic pension for that matter...it isn't government funded, and it is most unlikely to become so.......innit..