Will there be Pension apartheid?

kinger101

Dox said:

doris540 said:

Indeed i do have a small DB pension which as ive said before was stopped many years ago and last statement it stood at approx £4k a year reason for this low figure is due to not been in it long from induction to when they stopped it . After then it was a DC scheme where i have no control over where the company invests the money . I have my own personal pension with the Prudential as well. Im not here to argue i state how alot of people feel. Of course every statement on the internet about How the public sector pensions are so good against us mortals in the private sector is complete rubbish as well its all made up and were all wrong.. Enlighten me why do so many retire early from the likes of The Civil service because it does not pay them to keep working . And for the comment i should pay 37% into my pension as they are may i remind them that im along with all the other tax payers in the private sector enabling them to have have the high percentage paid by the employer The state .The Public sector pay nothing towards ours and i can see with this sad situation we are in many of us in the private sector wont have jobs and a next to nothing pension because of it. Whilst i cant see the Civil service going bust.
Rather than comments from the "Im alright Jack ive got a public sector pension " people treating us as if we are lower class citizens because we do manual jobs and such dont deserve the pensions the public sector get because we arent worth it , just remember whose helping you have the lifestyles you have . Its the "Have Yachts and The Have Nots" broadly speaking
We just want a levelling of the system sadly thou cant ever see it happening. Id be quite happy to see the Public sector emloyer reduce the contribution down to 5% like us and give people a pay rise to compensate wont ever happen

...and presumably you'd be happy to have your life saved by a public sector nurse or doctor, a public sector fireman rescue you from your burning home, a public sector policeman apprehend someone mugging you...what a load of embittered rot you spout. Please don't pretend you speak for me; you certainly do not when you acidly assert that 'We just want a levelling...'. Given what these public servants do, I don't begrudge a penny of my taxes paying of their pensions.

To be fair, I don't think highlighting specific roles within the public sector is particularly helpful.  While a good many people in the public sector are in the professions you've highlighted, there are many more that aren't on the "frontline".  Nobody goes into being a job of payroll administrator in local government because of some vocational calling to ensure people are remunerated in a timely manner.  It's just a job.

And at the same time, there are people performing what might be regarded as essential services, perhaps historically roles that were in the public sector but are now private.  

I have a lot of sympathy for people in the private sector in relatively low paid jobs because saving for a adequate pension will be very difficult for them.  But ending public sector DB schemes isn't going to solve their problem.

kinger101

doris540 said:

Indeed i do have a small DB pension which as ive said before was stopped many years ago and last statement it stood at approx £4k a year reason for this low figure is due to not been in it long from induction to when they stopped it . After then it was a DC scheme where i have no control over where the company invests the money . I have my own personal pension with the Prudential as well. 

Look on the bright side.  By you own admission, you didn't work there long, and you'll get £4K a year.  For the same amount from a drawdown scheme you'd need £100K at retirement, considerably more for an annuity.  

dunstonh

We just want a levelling of the system sadly thou cant ever see it happening. Id be quite happy to see the Public sector emloyer reduce the contribution down to 5% like us and give people a pay rise to compensate wont ever happen

So you want to give the public sector a big pay rise across the board but at the same time cut their pension entitlement.

[Deleted User]

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

Bravepants said:

I pay 7.3% or so into my pension, and my employer contributes about 22%. The 22% contribution is part of my salary package, and my take-home is lower than the private sector because of that. I know plenty in the private sector who drive new cars, own big houses, even fly planes but have little or no pension provision or emergency savings. I know people who run companies and have a lavish lifestyle while also contributing the absolute minimum into employees pension schemes and run zero hour contracts; it's THIS that needs to be redressed. If you work in the private sector, you are working for "The Man" and sometimes "The Man" sucks, but people still end up working for him because they are happy with what "The Man" provides, including their job or level of pay. Until somewhere down the line they realise that they are being hard done by, or have been prioritizing spending over saving, or have actually been screwed by "The Man"!

In reality, public sector gets paid more than the private sector (including pension contributions). Reference: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/analysisoffactorsaffectingearningsusingannualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017
And it is the man from the private sector who pays the public sector guy’s salary in the first place. And picks up 100% of the risk for the public sector guy’s pension guarantees. 

It’s unfair, thats all. 

Risk comes in lots of different forms. A policeman, firefighter or nurse takes risks in their jobs I don't, and I would much rather take a risk with my pension than my life. Jobs pay what they pay (including pension), so as keeps being said, anyone that thinks it's "unfair" should apply for a job in the public sector. Simples. It's not like people are born into public sector emloyment. Well not usually, there are some obvious exceptions!

The real issue though is understanding the value of public sector pensions, which lots of people don't including some public sector employees themselves. We get a lot of posts here about people thinking of opting out! They are usually persuaded not to. And lots of clueless FB memes going round about nurses pay and comparisons with other professions, taking no account of the values of their pension.

Here is the list of jobs with the highest risk. 9 out of 10 are in the private sector. Only healthcare made it to number 6. 

https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/personal-injury/blog/uks-top-10-most-dangerous-industries-work

nigelbb

itwasntme001 said:

The very important point I will make now is that if you look at annuity rates over the last 3 decades they have fallen considerably.  This means it is a lot more expensive to fund a db pension scheme now then it was 30 years ago.  Hence the reason for this move to cut back on public sector benefits such as db pension schemes.  Clearly the markets are saying the current cohort of doctors should not be compensated as well as the previous generation of doctor unless the general public (and more specifically the private sector) pay for it (one way - inflation - or another - higher taxes).  This is the fight, a tug of war if you will, between the public and private sectors that will escalate over the coming decades.

There is indeed no free lunch unfortunately.

You clearly don't understand how public sector pensions are funded. No annuity is purchased from a pension pot accumulated over the pensioner's career. Like all other government spending public sector pensions are paid out of a mixture of current taxes & future borrowing. Government borrowing is actually much cheaper now than previously as interest rates are at an historic low.

kinger101

Deleted_User said:

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

Bravepants said:

I pay 7.3% or so into my pension, and my employer contributes about 22%. The 22% contribution is part of my salary package, and my take-home is lower than the private sector because of that. I know plenty in the private sector who drive new cars, own big houses, even fly planes but have little or no pension provision or emergency savings. I know people who run companies and have a lavish lifestyle while also contributing the absolute minimum into employees pension schemes and run zero hour contracts; it's THIS that needs to be redressed. If you work in the private sector, you are working for "The Man" and sometimes "The Man" sucks, but people still end up working for him because they are happy with what "The Man" provides, including their job or level of pay. Until somewhere down the line they realise that they are being hard done by, or have been prioritizing spending over saving, or have actually been screwed by "The Man"!

In reality, public sector gets paid more than the private sector (including pension contributions). Reference: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/analysisoffactorsaffectingearningsusingannualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017
And it is the man from the private sector who pays the public sector guy’s salary in the first place. And picks up 100% of the risk for the public sector guy’s pension guarantees. 

It’s unfair, thats all. 

Risk comes in lots of different forms. A policeman, firefighter or nurse takes risks in their jobs I don't, and I would much rather take a risk with my pension than my life. Jobs pay what they pay (including pension), so as keeps being said, anyone that thinks it's "unfair" should apply for a job in the public sector. Simples. It's not like people are born into public sector emloyment. Well not usually, there are some obvious exceptions!

The real issue though is understanding the value of public sector pensions, which lots of people don't including some public sector employees themselves. We get a lot of posts here about people thinking of opting out! They are usually persuaded not to. And lots of clueless FB memes going round about nurses pay and comparisons with other professions, taking no account of the values of their pension.

Here is the list of jobs with the highest risk. 9 out of 10 are in the private sector. Only healthcare made it to number 6. 

https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/personal-injury/blog/uks-top-10-most-dangerous-industries-work

The source data is here
www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ridfatal.xlsx

I'd be careful reading during too many conclusions on specific professions, as many of the categories are quite broad.  Police Officers are lumped in with a lot of public services professions. And there's the added issue that there's a lot of noise in yearly data as in some jobs as deaths can occur sporadically in relatively large numbers.   And even if they did split the data into single professions, calculating the rate from a small n say for saturation diver (or these days, even miner) wouldn't be reliable.

But it's certainly true that there are a lot of people doing relatively dangerous jobs that are essential and employed in the private sector.  E.g providing our food and energy.  So creating a false dichotomy based on service element of public sector jobs doesn't really create a justification for DB pensions.   

Things are the way they are for historical reasons rather than out of fairness.  But everyone agreed to the terms of the contract of the job they're in, including the pension arrangements.  

chiefie

nigelbb said:

itwasntme001 said:

The very important point I will make now is that if you look at annuity rates over the last 3 decades they have fallen considerably.  This means it is a lot more expensive to fund a db pension scheme now then it was 30 years ago.  Hence the reason for this move to cut back on public sector benefits such as db pension schemes.  Clearly the markets are saying the current cohort of doctors should not be compensated as well as the previous generation of doctor unless the general public (and more specifically the private sector) pay for it (one way - inflation - or another - higher taxes).  This is the fight, a tug of war if you will, between the public and private sectors that will escalate over the coming decades.

There is indeed no free lunch unfortunately.

You clearly don't understand how public sector pensions are funded. No annuity is purchased from a pension pot accumulated over the pensioner's career. Like all other government spending public sector pensions are paid out of a mixture of current taxes & future borrowing. Government borrowing is actually much cheaper now than previously as interest rates are at an historic low.

The LGPS is a funded scheme. Boris a few years back wanted to consolidate them all and invest the money in infrastructure. Watch this space 

zagfles

nigelbb said:

itwasntme001 said:

The very important point I will make now is that if you look at annuity rates over the last 3 decades they have fallen considerably.  This means it is a lot more expensive to fund a db pension scheme now then it was 30 years ago.  Hence the reason for this move to cut back on public sector benefits such as db pension schemes.  Clearly the markets are saying the current cohort of doctors should not be compensated as well as the previous generation of doctor unless the general public (and more specifically the private sector) pay for it (one way - inflation - or another - higher taxes).  This is the fight, a tug of war if you will, between the public and private sectors that will escalate over the coming decades.

There is indeed no free lunch unfortunately.

You clearly don't understand how public sector pensions are funded. No annuity is purchased from a pension pot accumulated over the pensioner's career. Like all other government spending public sector pensions are paid out of a mixture of current taxes & future borrowing. Government borrowing is actually much cheaper now than previously as interest rates are at an historic low.

Whether cheap or not, no sensible government should be borrowing to pay for day to day spending like public sector wages (including pensions). Not over the long term, obviously short term it may be necessary at points in the economic cycle.

However the pension is funded, public, private sector employer, or personal pension, the economic fundamentals are the same, we're all in the same economy.  There's no intrinsic reason for public sector pensions to be better than private, other than normal overall labour market pressures. If we see massively more competition for NHS, police and school jobs than private sector jobs, then we know we're overpaying the public sector.

Middlestitch

kinger101 said:

Dox said:

doris540 said:

Indeed i do have a small DB pension which as ive said before was stopped many years ago and last statement it stood at approx £4k a year reason for this low figure is due to not been in it long from induction to when they stopped it . After then it was a DC scheme where i have no control over where the company invests the money . I have my own personal pension with the Prudential as well. Im not here to argue i state how alot of people feel. Of course every statement on the internet about How the public sector pensions are so good against us mortals in the private sector is complete rubbish as well its all made up and were all wrong.. Enlighten me why do so many retire early from the likes of The Civil service because it does not pay them to keep working . And for the comment i should pay 37% into my pension as they are may i remind them that im along with all the other tax payers in the private sector enabling them to have have the high percentage paid by the employer The state .The Public sector pay nothing towards ours and i can see with this sad situation we are in many of us in the private sector wont have jobs and a next to nothing pension because of it. Whilst i cant see the Civil service going bust.
Rather than comments from the "Im alright Jack ive got a public sector pension " people treating us as if we are lower class citizens because we do manual jobs and such dont deserve the pensions the public sector get because we arent worth it , just remember whose helping you have the lifestyles you have . Its the "Have Yachts and The Have Nots" broadly speaking
We just want a levelling of the system sadly thou cant ever see it happening. Id be quite happy to see the Public sector emloyer reduce the contribution down to 5% like us and give people a pay rise to compensate wont ever happen

...and presumably you'd be happy to have your life saved by a public sector nurse or doctor, a public sector fireman rescue you from your burning home, a public sector policeman apprehend someone mugging you...what a load of embittered rot you spout. Please don't pretend you speak for me; you certainly do not when you acidly assert that 'We just want a levelling...'. Given what these public servants do, I don't begrudge a penny of my taxes paying of their pensions.

To be fair, I don't think highlighting specific roles within the public sector is particularly helpful.  While a good many people in the public sector are in the professions you've highlighted, there are many more that aren't on the "frontline".  Nobody goes into being a job of payroll administrator in local government because of some vocational calling to ensure people are remunerated in a timely manner.  It's just a job.

And at the same time, there are people performing what might be regarded as essential services, perhaps historically roles that were in the public sector but are now private.  

I have a lot of sympathy for people in the private sector in relatively low paid jobs because saving for a adequate pension will be very difficult for them.  But ending public sector DB schemes isn't going to solve their problem.

I think in the current climate, highlighting specific roles is extremely relevant and helpful, if only to remind idiots like OP that constantly regurgitating the same ill-informed drivel (look at her other posts - nothing new in this one) misses the point. If she's that agitated about having a DB pension, she could always try getting a non "frontline" job.

Silvertabby

chiefie said:

nigelbb said:

itwasntme001 said:

The very important point I will make now is that if you look at annuity rates over the last 3 decades they have fallen considerably.  This means it is a lot more expensive to fund a db pension scheme now then it was 30 years ago.  Hence the reason for this move to cut back on public sector benefits such as db pension schemes.  Clearly the markets are saying the current cohort of doctors should not be compensated as well as the previous generation of doctor unless the general public (and more specifically the private sector) pay for it (one way - inflation - or another - higher taxes).  This is the fight, a tug of war if you will, between the public and private sectors that will escalate over the coming decades.

There is indeed no free lunch unfortunately.

You clearly don't understand how public sector pensions are funded. No annuity is purchased from a pension pot accumulated over the pensioner's career. Like all other government spending public sector pensions are paid out of a mixture of current taxes & future borrowing. Government borrowing is actually much cheaper now than previously as interest rates are at an historic low.

The LGPS is a funded scheme. Boris a few years back wanted to consolidate them all and invest the money in infrastructure. Watch this space 

There are 89 separate LGPS funds in England and Wales, including several in London alone.  Rumours about possible amalgamation, into a lesser number of bigger funds, have been rumbling for years.  Can't see how combining them into one fund would work.  Yes, I know the NHS has done it, but the LGPS is far more complex, with its Admitted Bodies and the tendancy for a lot of manual workers to have more than one post, to keep changing hours, etc.  Just the first two points that came to mind, but there are many more.