Why do posters here have disproportionately higher than average pension funds...

Prism

Albermarle said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Prism said:

I'm thinking that you don't contribute enough then. If a private sector salary paid just 10% more than a public sector salary then you could choose to put all of that into a workplace pension or SIPP. Thats probably all it would take.

Need to pay at least 35% into a pension to match the public sector pension really.

Possibly but I would say with a standard contribution of 8%, plus an extra 10%, then over a full working career that should be plenty. 

Most private sector pension schemes need regular one off top ups from the company to keep their head above water .

I was assuming a defined contribution pension. It seems many people are quite happy to contribute up to the company match but don't want to commit to 20% to 30% in total - which is what effective public sector pensions are doing.

BritishInvestor

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

doris540 said:

I never said you were parasites its the system it just annoys alot of us in the private sector that our pensions are worth five times less on average .Everything ive contributed to my company pension in last 12 months has been lost due to the markets Public sector ones totally untouched. The public sector say their salaries are lower and the pension is a form of compensation. So if thats the case our wages should be five times more than the public sector wages...................never in a month of sundays . Parasites no , milk the system yes. One example large government dept many staff were claiming first class travel on the train for meetings in London it got to a point that it was cheaper for them to have their own coaches which they do now all kitted out tables the lot and go by road. Friend of mine husband in the FCO all their kids went to private school from day one till they went to uni all their fees paid by the taxpayer and all the travel etc. Can the average man in the street afford to pay Private school fees ...............exactly.. 

And if your pension is still down over the last 12 months then something is wrong. Most are up between 4% - 6%. Some are up over 15%

They might simply have too much invested in the UK rather than mostly global. My UK equity income funds have suffered more than others, but I'm still hoping they recover to previous levels.

Maybe thats the bit thats wrong. Investing in UK income funds at all. It seems that shares prices nor dividends have held up during this crash.

I think there is still a place in retiree portfolios for some equity income funds, although dividends are being hit worse than in previous crashes. Maybe the equity income ITs that have managed to pay rising dividends for decades are a better bet to ensure the income continues through this crisis.

I don't see the upsides over a total return approach

TBC15

It’s appalling in this day and age that some people are banned from entering the public sector workforce and making use of the associated life choices.

Mistermeaner

Back to the original question : 
Definite selection bias on this forum 
Posters here will generally consider a very long term view in balancing their finances between

 debt today + spending today = lifestyle today  

Vs

Saving today = lifestyle tomorrow 


I'm amazed with how many people (friends and colleagues in the real world) who are by many measures intelligent aware savvy switched on etc but are clueless about pensions - to the point of not even thinking about the basics 

How many people have no idea about the state pension (ahem waspi ahem) ?

How can any one think that sacrificing 5% of their pay to get a matched 5% from their employer is going to fund a retirement of equal standards to their working life ?

I don't agree with the tone of comment directed at public sector but the level of pension ignorance in the public sector is generally no different - it's just that a lot of police , teachers , nhs etc etc have no idea how lucky they are and how much their pensions are worth in real terms 

doris540

TBC15 said:

It’s appalling in this day and age that some people are banned from entering the public sector workforce and making use of the associated life choices.

Its appalling that we had our final salary schemes pulled with no choice and yet the public sector was basically in their reform was more or less a change of wording still leaving it way in front . I couldnt care less if The employer in The Public sector which is funded throu taxes paid in the same as the average in the Private sector. Its the fact that the employer is paying 3 times if not more than we have paid by our employers. Imagine what would happen if the government announced that all public sector employer contributions were been reduced to 5% across the board for all those earning up to £50k ..

ZeroSum

doris540 said:

TBC15 said:

It’s appalling in this day and age that some people are banned from entering the public sector workforce and making use of the associated life choices.

Its appalling that we had our final salary schemes pulled with no choice and yet the public sector was basically in their reform was more or less a change of wording still leaving it way in front . I couldnt care less if The employer in The Public sector which is funded throu taxes paid in the same as the average in the Private sector. Its the fact that the employer is paying 3 times if not more than we have paid by our employers. Imagine what would happen if the government announced that all public sector employer contributions were been reduced to 5% across the board for all those earning up to £50k ..

Somewhat ignorant. 
The only final salary that exists in the public sector is built up accrued benefits. They're now all average salary (and have been for past half a dozen or so years) with larger actuarial reductions for taking early. 
Employee contributions have also increased

Yes, they're still attractive compared most private sector DC schemes but not as attractive as you seem to think they are. 

Bravepants

I guess the answer to the problem of public sector pensions is that the UK Gov could outsource, or privatise, everything. People can hang on to their tax but pay for everything they currently take for granted, like defense, refuse collection, schooling, street lighting, roads (with modern camera technology and image recognition it's easy to establish a network of road tolling), medicine (we have a prospective buyer for the NHS after all) perhaps DOnald Trump,  Elon Musk, or Amazon, or Google, or Facebook can help develop all of that? I'm sure that above-inflation price increases won't occur and everything will be a lot fairer. These companies won't have to pay any tax so they can re-invest and reduce prices for us punters. In another example, during future pandemics punters would take advantage of their "Pandemic Income Insurance", running alongside a variety of other insurances for which they pay premiums, for example, health. The Pandemic Insurance can provide an equivalent to their monthly income, up to perhaps 80% of their pay, for a fixed period. Those who elect NOT to pay for the insurance (it's a free world afterall, and we don't need the nanny state to tell us what to do) of course won't be eligible, but hey at least there will be no complaints made towards the Government for every little thing that goes wrong and they can get on with ..... running ... the.., err, ... country. Hmm!

So then if people have less tax to pay they can pay more into their pensions right?

There then would be no such thing as public sector pensions, we would ALL be responsible for our own future pension provision equally. And there would be no inequality or anything because everyone will have spent their money on all of these fantastic, high quality, services while saving towards their future pension provision.

As for those on benefits, well, they would have to be provided again based on the level of insurance premiums that people have paid. Those who are on long term sick, have learning difficulties, or are unable to work in general can apply for funding from a benevolent fund established by the private sector, a kind of "giving back to society" if you will. So a portion of the profits made by these companies based on services that have been paid for by their subscribers can be set aside to help the poor and needy. The Government of course would have no input in any of this and would have no recourse to ensure fair play or consistency, or adherence to standards.

doris540

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8093327/Public-sector-workers-pensions-aristocrats.html
I think this puts our point forward in The Private sector 

robadger

doris540 said:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8093327/Public-sector-workers-pensions-aristocrats.html
I think this puts our point forward in The Private sector 

The Daily Mail is of course famously even-handed in its attitude to the public sector. 

Bravepants

doris540 said:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8093327/Public-sector-workers-pensions-aristocrats.html
I think this puts our point forward in The Private sector 

Indeed, see my previous post, let's do away with the public sector, no-one needs it and it's completely unfair.