Hammond backs our argument

Muscle750 · 18 July 2017 at 5:27PM

As previously stated and now with Phillip Hammonds backing The public sector pensions are far more beneficial than the private sector and basically greed now wanting a uncapped pay increase..............Dont worry we will keep paying for it while they take the money and run at 55/60.

hyubh · 18 July 2017 at 6:23PM

Muscle750 wrote: »

As previously stated and now with Phillip Hammonds backing The public sector pensions are far more beneficial than the private sector and basically greed now wanting a uncapped pay increase..............Dont worry we will keep paying for it while they take the money and run at 55/60.

Groan, not another one from you on this topic. I'd suggest reposting to one the debating boards and deleting the post made here. Let's keep this board (relatively) constructive and about concrete pensions problems, rather than for having an opinionated whinge...

(PS - for the same reason I wish people wouldn't continue to post to the latest WASPI thread - it serves zero purpose and just creates noise.)

BobQ · 18 July 2017 at 10:18PM

Muscle750 wrote: »

As previously stated and now with Phillip Hammonds backing The public sector pensions are far more beneficial than the private sector and basically greed now wanting a uncapped pay increase..............Dont worry we will keep paying for it while they take the money and run at 55/60.

I guess its easy to criticise when you would not be capable of getting a job in the public sector. You cannot even write a coherent sentence.

marlot · 19 July 2017 at 7:58AM

Muscle750 wrote: »

As previously stated and now with Phillip Hammonds backing The public sector pensions are far more beneficial than the private sector and basically greed now wanting a uncapped pay increase..............Dont worry we will keep paying for it while they take the money and run at 55/60.

As I've said previously, you're welcome to apply for a job in the department where I work. We have lots of vacancies.

Pension age is now 67/68 [in line with state retirement age], and career average rather than final salary.

Sure the historic pensions were generous, but you can hardly take them away retrospectively. For what it's worth, my private sector pensions were much better than the civil service pension I'm now in.

Yes, I'm planning to retire early - but I've been contributing huge amounts extra to my pension [65% of my gross salary]. The same applies to a couple of my colleagues who are also planning to go early.

Elijah_Bailey · 19 July 2017 at 8:22AM

I have a family member in a civil service scheme (police) and a few years ago he talked about four different classes of pensions with decreasing levels of benefits depending on when you joined.

The classes of pension all had grand names but I cannot remember them and he also mentioned there was even a DC option with employer contributions. I assume this option is offered as no "pension freedoms" will ever be available for unfunded schemes.

Anyone jealous of the unfunded public sector schemes should perhaps ponder the fact that all the reductions in these schemes and the increased levels of contributions will mainly apply to the low level public sector workers. Maybe coppers and nurses and teachers deserve a little reward for the kicking the general public and their local MP repeated give them on a daily basis.

I have private sector pensions and I would not go through 30 or more years of abuse from the great British public just for a pension I have contributed slightly less towards.

coyrls · 19 July 2017 at 1:42PM

Hammond backs our argument

Less of the "our", "my" would be better.

mollycat · 19 July 2017 at 5:32PM

coyrls wrote: »

Less of the "our", "my" would be better.

And while we are at it maybe less of the "argument" as well.

"bigoted, irrational obsession" is a better fit.

BobQ · 19 July 2017 at 7:46PM

Elijah_Bailey wrote: »

IAnyone jealous of the unfunded public sector schemes should perhaps ponder the fact that all the reductions in these schemes and the increased levels of contributions will mainly apply to the low level public sector workers. .

.

The other factor is that those receiving the best public service pensions will have worked there for 40 years or so. Most of these will have started work at 16 or 18 and have a much lower life expectancy than those who are now joining or mid career tod

Today for those about to retire the schemes seem generous. But when those people joined the schemes they were not viewed as that generous. I recall joining the civil service from university. The pay was about 10% less than I was offered in the private sector but the pension was allegedly worth about 8% and in the late 70s job security was worth having (unemployment was high). Ten years later a job offer involving a 20% pay rise (albeit having to contribute 7% to the company DB scheme) could not be ignored.

These days pay plus the value of the employers contribution are similar and job security is not that different either, and I am told that terms and conditions are increasingly being reduced to private sector levels. It will not be long before pensions are reformed again to match average private sector terms.

hyubh · 19 July 2017 at 8:11PM

Elijah_Bailey wrote: »

I have a family member in a civil service scheme (police) and a few years ago he talked about four different classes of pensions with decreasing levels of benefits depending on when you joined.

Presumably this is talking about the main (or 'by analogy') civil service schemes. Before bringing out the tiny violins, keep in mind Alpha is way beyond the contemporary private sector norm.

The classes of pension all had grand names

Classic, Premium, Nuvos, Alpha. Admittedly sexier naming than the LGPS (LGPS 1997, LGPS 2008, LGPS 2014... very dull...).

but I cannot remember them and he also mentioned there was even a DC option with employer contributions.

It's called Partnership, and is an excellent DC scheme - standard employer rate of 8%-14.75% depending on age + 3% matching.

I assume this option is offered as no "pension freedoms" will ever be available for unfunded schemes.

No, it began in 2002.

Anyone jealous of the unfunded public sector schemes should perhaps ponder the fact that all the reductions in these schemes

They remain great.

and the increased levels of contributions

The civil service scheme was traditionally non-contributory for main scheme benefits... so the only way was up!

will mainly apply to the low level public sector workers.

These individuals got a great deal from recent changes - higher accrual rates, enhanced emphasis on employee rate banding by salary (so, earn less, pay less proportionally), and the end of contracting out which gives them a higher state pension than they would have had.

I have private sector pensions and I would not go through 30 or more years of abuse from the great British public just for a pension I have contributed slightly less towards.

Really? You'd chuck away a generous DB pension because of the odd negative tabloid headline...?

(PS - yes, I realise I've completely failed to live up to my own recommendations

)

k6chris · 19 July 2017 at 9:49PM

It's really simple; if you covet a good pension as your primary reward, apply for jobs in the public sector that have one. If you want a higher salary, probably best to look in the the private sector. If you are working in the public sector with a crap pension, or in the private sector with a poor salary, consider looking elsewhere. It's your life and your decision. There are plenty of job vacancies out there if you don't like your current lot. Whatever you do, think about how you plan to support yourself once you have finished working.

badmemory · 20 July 2017 at 2:42AM

Perhaps we need to look harder at MPs pensions. Obviously they must be much worse than local government or teachers. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it comes under the heading of it is great that I get it but no-one else should.