Rhetoric media on state gold plated pensions

sheslookinhot

Andy_L said:

Altior said:

jimi_man said:

The gold plated pension aspect is rather difficult for me. On the one hand I can see the 'considerable' expense by the tax payer, in a time where a squeeze is coming. On the other hand I have been a recipient of a what would probably be termed reasonably gold plated pension. I've been in receipt of it since I retired (from that employment) when I was 51 and it's uncapped CPI. It's around £32k and I paid into it for 30 years. I do appreciate that it's pretty valuable, and at the moment I'm extremely thankful that it's uncapped. I have a Civil Service pension (Career Average) that's nowhere near as valuable, though that is also uncapped.

(One aspect that I hadn't considered is that with two years of these inflationary rises on both pensions, plus on my state pension when I get it, coupled with the freeze on tax thresholds, may push me into the 40% tax bracket slightly which I also appreciate is a rather niche problem.)

In principle I was in agreement with the public sector pension changes, though it could be seen as rather 'I'm alright Jack'.

I don't know what the answer is. 

Well public sector pensions are a relic of a bygone era. Obviously many people expect to live well into their dotage nowadays, especially many civil service retirees, whom were button pushers (I am also a button pusher).

It has been far too slow, but changes have been made to state pension ages and gender alignment, which of course will inevitably be pushed further out.

The higher echelons of the public sector/establishment makes decisions about itself. They are all happy that the (bloated) HoL attendees get over £300 a day tax free for signing in, as to a man they all have designs on a seat on the gravy train. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas so it won't be changing in a big way any time soon. Akin to fat cats on boards, I'll scratch your back, you can scratch mine. 

As far as I can see, very little has been done to ensure public sector pensions reflect the reality of living in the 21st century.

There is no resentfulness or bitterness from me, I could get a job in the public sector and benefit from the pension arrangements. If all I cared about was enjoying a good pension and stopping work early in my life, that's probably what I would do. 

Would you rather pay them a salary & expenses instead?

Better to abolish them.

Andy_L

gm0 said:

Just end remaining unfunded DB indexed accrual where the bill is PAYG on the way out and replace those pensions for new accrual.  Do it now - at the next employment contract review cycle.  The first rule of pulling bodies out which fell into a river successfully is to start by stopping pushing them in.

Which tax do you want to raise to pay the pensions currently accrued?

QrizB

sheslookinhot said:

Andy_L said:

Altior said:

The higher echelons of the public sector/establishment makes decisions about itself. They are all happy that the (bloated) HoL attendees get over £300 a day tax free for signing in, a

Would you rather pay them a salary & expenses instead?

Better to abolish them.

... then pay their replacements a salary and a pension?

jonnyfive111

Altior. It may surprise you but there is a significant portion of civil service staff who are not "button pushers".

sheslookinhot

QrizB said:

sheslookinhot said:

Andy_L said:

Altior said:

The higher echelons of the public sector/establishment makes decisions about itself. They are all happy that the (bloated) HoL attendees get over £300 a day tax free for signing in, a

Would you rather pay them a salary & expenses instead?

Better to abolish them.

... then pay their replacements a salary and a pension?

I meant the HoL. No replacements necessary.

QrizB

sheslookinhot said:

QrizB said:

sheslookinhot said:

Andy_L said:

Altior said:

The higher echelons of the public sector/establishment makes decisions about itself. They are all happy that the (bloated) HoL attendees get over £300 a day tax free for signing in, a

Would you rather pay them a salary & expenses instead?

Better to abolish them.

... then pay their replacements a salary and a pension?

I meant the HoL. No replacements necessary.

You'd prefer a single legislative house?

It's an opinion, I guess, but have you thought this through?

sevenhills

Altior said:

MPs are earning pension benefits worth more than £40,000 a year on top of their £82,000 salary.

So they get a pension benefit that is equivalent to more than most peoples' entire salary. Do you envisage them voting to reverse this any time soon?

I am sure the type of pension they get is a matter for debate, but MPs are very important and influential people.
When people are complaining how much FTSE directors get paid, MPs are under paid.

hugheskevi

Altior said:

Employees within 10 years of receiving their civil service pension remained in their legacy scheme. The majority of these have a retirement age of 60 and, for long tenure employees, this may provide sufficient income for full retirement, if desired.

People on here will know more about the detail of civil service pensions than me, but I believe this means that there are still button pushers who can leave at age 60 on full whack, as of now. 

All existing public service pension scheme members, including the Civil Service, are active members of the reformed pension schemes from April 2022.

The reformed schemes are commonly more generous than the legacy schemes for older workers in the Civil Service, despite the higher Normal Pension age. The 'protection' to remain in legacy scheme in many cases would have resulted in a lower pension had it not been for the McCloud judgment.

The above demonstrates the irrelevance in many cases of Normal Pension age - alpha has a normal pension age of 67 yet can produce a higher pension than a legacy scheme with Normal Pension age of 60 due to a higher accrual rate.

jimi_man

hugheskevi said:

Altior said:

Employees within 10 years of receiving their civil service pension remained in their legacy scheme. The majority of these have a retirement age of 60 and, for long tenure employees, this may provide sufficient income for full retirement, if desired.

People on here will know more about the detail of civil service pensions than me, but I believe this means that there are still button pushers who can leave at age 60 on full whack, as of now. 

All existing public service pension scheme members, including the Civil Service, are active members of the reformed pension schemes from April 2022.

The reformed schemes are commonly more generous than the legacy schemes for older workers in the Civil Service, despite the higher Normal Pension age. The 'protection' to remain in legacy scheme in many cases would have resulted in a lower pension had it not been for the McCloud judgment.

The above demonstrates the irrelevance in many cases of Normal Pension age - alpha has a normal pension age of 67 yet can produce a higher pension than a legacy scheme with Normal Pension age of 60 due to a higher accrual rate.

Not in the case of the police. The new 2015 scheme is far less valuable than the old 1987 scheme. Retirement age without actuarial reduction) changed from a possible 48 (average 51) to 60 and went from 2/3 salary after 30 years to career average. That's a big hit.

Altior

jonnyfive111 said:

Altior. It may surprise you but there is a significant portion of civil service staff who are not "button pushers".

I'm a button pusher jonny. Now don't even leave my house to work. As I've alluded to upthread, it's not resentment. In fact, I can empathise with many of the 'benefits' of this type of work in this high tech era.

Possible difference to many is that I've also done a physically grafting job.

I'd be all for any civil servants who do a physically grafting job five days a week to retire earlier than the button pushers telling them where to go and what to do. Whilst the future taxpayer is facing the exposure of guaranteed, index linked public sector pensions.