Civil Service Alpha or Partnership?

kidmugsy

hyubh wrote: »

See his posting history - he has a sizeable USS pension and is paranoid about the state of the USS' finances...

(i) How do you know whether it's "sizeable"? I have never mentioned its size; are you some sort of clairvoyant?

(ii) "Paranoid" is just what I'm not. When I told my younger colleagues a decade or so ago that USS was in trouble and that they could expect their pensions to be cut, they were disinclined to believe me. Their pensions have since been cut. And, if they are young enough, they may in the future, I'd guess, find themselves closed off from contributing to a DB pension at all. It's what will happen to most DB schemes that don't have the power to pillage the taxpayer.

In your strange world, clearly "paranoid" means "accurate".

hyubh

Tromking wrote: »

Well, public servants pay taxes too.

Funnily enough, I didn't deny that. As you mention it however, for the unfunded public sector schemes, higher taxation suitably targeted would indeed be a reasonable way of clawing back what were in hindsight overgenerous pension promises.

As a taxpayer at least I get a days work from a civil servant (usually anyway!) however I don't see why I should fund a subsidy to the likes of Tesco and its shareholders though.

Genius, you attack perhaps the one major company until recent troubles who still offered a decent DB pension to new recruits...

hyubh

kidmugsy wrote: »

(i) How do you know whether it's "sizeable"? I have never mentioned its size; are you some sort of clairvoyant?

(ii) "Paranoid" is just what I'm not. When I told my younger colleagues a decade or so ago that USS was in trouble and that they could expect their pensions to be cut, they were disinclined to believe me. Their pensions have since been cut. And, if they are young enough, they may in the future, I'd guess, find themselves closed off from contributing to a DB pension at all. It's what will happen to most DB schemes that don't have the power to pillage the taxpayer.

In your strange world, clearly "paranoid" means "accurate".

:rotfl: I knew you were a bit touchy on the subject, but didn't realise it was that much!

Johnsti

Thank bigadaj for trying to add some sanity to this shambles. I guess I'm going with Partnership due to the coin coming down on heads...

hyubh

Johnsti wrote: »

I'm going with Partnership

When did you exit the LGPS? OK, you've said you benefit from the 85 year rule (which other things equal you'd want to keep, obviously), however is it outside the range of maintaining the final salary link? (5 years - which isn't to say you'd necessarily want to keep a final salary link...)

Tromking

hyubh wrote: »

Genius, you attack perhaps the one major company until recent troubles who still offered a decent DB pension to new recruits...

I don't see what a private company is/was offering its employees by way of a pension has got to do with anything, it's a matter for them.
You seemed bothered by taxpayers funding the remuneration package of public sector workers, I merely pointed out that you are also subsidising private companies and their shareholders when they pay their subsistence level wages too.

bigadaj

Johnsti wrote: »

Thank bigadaj for trying to add some sanity to this shambles. I guess I'm going with Partnership due to the coin coming down on heads...

Not often I'm accused of sanity, so more indicative of the other responses I suppose.

In reality the difference between your options is limited, marginally better in partnership for the gap you are trying to fill but then losing out significantly after that.

Bridging the gap in your sixties seems the key, is there any opportunity to drop down to part time or alternative employment for this period?

hyubh

Tromking wrote: »

I don't see what a private company is/was offering its employees by way of a pension has got to do with anything, it's a matter for them.

And yet that isn't the case for public sector pensions, is it, because there's no choice but to help pay for them. People who work in the public sector are no more worthy than people who work at Tesco (indeed, at the lowest levels there's a reasonable bit of overlap).

You seemed bothered by taxpayers funding the remuneration package of public sector workers

I'm not 'bothered' by that (and if you think I am - check my posting history), I'm just objecting to the idea that longstanding members of public sector final salary schemes should have some special right to their scheme never changing.

Tromking

hyubh wrote: »

And yet that isn't the case for public sector pensions, is it, because there's no choice but to help pay for them. People who work in the public sector are no more worthy than people who work at Tesco (indeed, at the lowest levels there's a reasonable bit of overlap).

Really?
The investment the state, ergo the taxpayer makes in the career of a paramedic or a nurse is akin to a supermarket shelf-stacker to you?

hyubh wrote: »

I'm not 'bothered' by that (and if you think I am - check my posting history), I'm just objecting to the idea that longstanding members of public sector final salary schemes should have some special right to their scheme never changing.

I think it's a reasonable expectation to finish with the same terms and conditions you signed up to at the beginning. Your point seems to be, others were shafted, so everybody must suffer the same fate.

hyubh

Tromking wrote: »

Really?
The investment the state, ergo the taxpayer makes in the career of a paramedic or a nurse is akin to a supermarket shelf-stacker to you?

I believe public sector workers are no more or less worthy than private sector workers. If a nurse decides to leave the NHS and take up work in a private hospital, she hasn't lost her soul - she's just making a living like anyone else.

Your point seems to be, others were shafted, so everybody must suffer the same fate.

Are you !!!!!! from the internet...? (http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07)