Makes my blood boil

uk1

agarnett,

practically and pragmatically, what do you believe a future government will actually do about this?

Jeff

Andy_L

agarnett wrote: »

For the truly wise amongst us, it should be obvious from that report that the £1tn figure is 10 years out of date AND that it predated the totally unexpected Financial Crisis, AND that if the basis of it is indeed the assumed cost of gilts (in 2006) that would provide the necessary yield (in 2006) to support public service pensions then it is totally incorrect now (in 2016). Funded private sector schemes have mandatory 3 year revaluations for a reason. Many would say that full annual revaluations are necessary thesedays.

Are you therefore satisfied with no revaluation in 10 years?

I find the annual figures the treasury publish in the Whole of Government Accounts do the job for me.

You'd have to ask Neil Record/IFS why they haven't bothered redoing the exercise themselves

Andy_L

agarnett wrote: »

Have you read the 2010 Hutton report which was kindly linked to by hugheskevi which is at least written with a background of the financial crisis?

Is that the Hutton report that said

" The Government must honour in full the pension promises that
have been accrued by scheme members: their accrued rights. In doing so, the Commission recommends maintaining the final salary link for past service for current members. "?

Thicko2

Presumably we could have the same debate on the State pension and create a much bigger nominal future liability figure, and then propose the same argument; tough you've lived too long hence lets slash it in half or just get rid of it. That appears to be the logic of the argument proposed here.

What it clear is that creating a pay as you go schemes for public sector pensions was a choice based on the economic circumstances at the time (post war etc). No fund has ever been created. This is not inherently a bad concept provided things remain broadly in balance.

The work of Hutton was partly about looking at the annual contributions from public sector employers, employees and central government over the long term to assess sustainability.

I think the final solutions which have been implemented has capped this level as % of GDP and in fact forecasts some decline over the long term. How was this done?

By a range of measures:

RPI to CPI for all (reducing total paid to pensioners by 1% compounded each year
Raising retirement age to state pension age (for me 60 to 67/68)
Increasing member contributions (for me from 6.5% to 13.5%)
Increasing some employer contribution rates.
Generous retirement with made-up pensions for redundancy have now stopped.

An element of the fact that there is no fund means unlike other private sector DB schemes, members cannot receive a CETV transfer to take control of notional fund.

Additional continued pay restraint in the public sector probably reduces the income going into the fund to then pay out to retired members on a yearly basis.

It is interesting noting the debate RPI to CPI is causing in the TATA and British Steel case now.

So I am paying more for the next 20 odd years (doubled + contributions), to receive less than i would have achieved prior to the changes (RPI to CPI), and cant start drawing the pension until later (link to state retirement age -or face a greater actuarial reduction).

The above is a statement of facts. I calculate the overall impact is broadly 25% to 30% less income or extra costs to purchase it.

How much more would you have liked me to contribute Alf?

uk1

I think they will go for changing the RPI to CPI and therefore choose simply to kick the issue down the road for future governments by fudging a model that shows that growth plus the change will make things OK in the long run.

Jeff

Thicko2 wrote: »

Presumably we could have the same debate on the State pension and create a much bigger nominal future liability figure, and then proposes the same argument that tough you've lived too long hence lets slash it in half or just get rid of it. That appears to be the logic of the argument proposed here.

What it clear is that creating a pay as you go schemes for public sector pensions was a choice based on the economic circumstances at the time (post war etc). No fund has ever been created. This is not inherently a bad concept provided things remain broadly in balance.

The work of Hutton was partly about looking at the annual contributions from public sector employers, employees and central government over the long term to assess sustainability.

I think the final solutions which have been implemented has capped this level as % of GDP and in fact forecasts some decline over the long term. How was this done?

By a range of measures:

RPI to CPI for all (reducing total paid to pensioners by 1% compounded each year
Raising retirement age to state pension age (for me 60 to 67/68)
Increasing member contributions (for me from 6.5% to 13.5%)
Increasing small employee contribution rates.
Generous retirement with made-up pensions for redundancy have now stopped.

An element of the fact that there is no fund means unlike other private sector DB schemes, members cannot receive a CETV transfer to take control of notional fund.

Additional continued pay restraint in the public sector probably reduces the income going into the fund to then pay out to retired members on a yearly basis.

It is interesting noting the debate RPI to CPI is causing in the TATA and British Steel case now.

So I am paying more for the next 20 odd years (doubled + contributions), to recieive less than i would have achieved prior to the changes (RPI to CPI), and cant start drawing the pension to later (link to state retirement age -or face a greater actuarial reduction).

The above is a statement of facts. I calculate the overall impact is broadly 25% to 30% less income or extra costs to purchase it.

How much more would you have liked me to contribute alf?

[Deleted User]

uk1 wrote: »

I think they will go for changing the RPI to CPI and therefore choose simply to kick the issue down the road for future governments by fudging a model that shows that growth plus the change will make things OK in the long run.

Jeff

You are probably right. The Local Government Superannuation Scheme in Scotland is now CPI rather than RPI; career average, rather than final salary; and has higher staff contributions. Of course for folk like Agarnett, that's not enough, but having read his posts I doubt if anything short of the confiscation of assets would be.

WR

uk1

It seems to me that this change will actually save quite a lot but will not nudge the wholescale long-term "unrest" than any other option might do. I think the argument will be that it is "in everyone's best interest including scheme members because it protects their pension from even worst risks in the future". There will be an outcry but I think it will have to be accepted by the minority simply because the majority aren't bothered because they are unaffected. The minority who object will be cast as being "selfish". It seems like a no brainer and the problem dissapears for another 20 years.

I've invited agarnett to state what he thinks a government will actually choose to do so that we can gauge how politically possible his proposed situation is. Constantly repeating that it is unfair I think should now stop as I think we are clear about his statement of the problem, so now it would be interesting to see how far he has thought it through from a practical solutions standpoint.

Jeff

Wild_Rover wrote: »

You are probably right. The Local Government Superannuation Scheme in Scotland is now CPI rather than RPI; career average, rather than final salary; and has higher staff contributions. Of course for folk like Agarnett, that's not enough, but having read his posts I doubt if anything short of the confiscation of assets would be.

WR

BobQ

agarnett wrote: »

I just set 'em up bowlhead99. So you read it ? But you added zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


So can we please take a quantum leap into the present and get real, please?

TL DR - a man with a big chip on his shoulders, who made the wring choices.

BobQ

Wild_Rover wrote: »

You are probably right. The Local Government Superannuation Scheme in Scotland is now CPI rather than RPI; career average, rather than final salary; and has higher staff contributions. Of course for folk like Agarnett, that's not enough, but having read his posts I doubt if anything short of the confiscation of assets would be.

WR

I applaud your stamina in reading the AG posts, I have been worn down to ignoring his witterings.

uk1

BobQ wrote: »

I applaud your stamina in reading the AG posts, I have been worn down to ignoring his witterings.

I mean this nicely, honestly, but for someone who chooses to align himself with Einstein, you are I feel a little intolerant of others.

If I might speak on Einstein's behalf as he was unable to join this thread this evening, he would say, I am sure, that people that agree with you have little to offer you in terms of learning something new. Listening to others who have a contrary view might offer the chance to learn something, however you like the way that they choose to express themselves. It is the points that are potentially illuminating. And remote-control bullying is something I know that Bert would disapprove of.

So I ask you and others in all niceness, let him be and let us try and be nice to each other if we can.

Jeff