Public sector pensions …if triple lock abandoned.

SouthCoastBoy

Ainsty said:

arnoldy said:

Ainsty said:

arnoldy said:

Moving forwards time to have everyone on the same pensions to avoid the current apartheid. New joiners on Private or Government jobs get Defined Contributions. NO reason for new people entering the workplace to be treated differently for pension.

High house prices, student loans, c**p pensions - how much more do you want to disadvantage young people? 

It is NOT fair that all our young people are treated unequally - why should those in private sector get different pension to public sector? Imagine if minimum wage was different in private and public sector but that's what the current pension position is - absolute scandal.

The intergenerational fairness thing is an important (and separate) discussion.

Why not suggest that everyone gets a DB pension? Why insists on a race to the bottom? You have been conditioned to accept poor quality pensions as being the only ones possible. This is not a law of nature, you have been conned and you have come to believe what you are told without questioning the situation.

Even some ministers appreciate db pensions are  unsustainable https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/public-sector-db-pensions-are-unsustainable-minister-opperman/a2389666

sevenhills

arnoldy said

It is NOT fair that all our young people are treated unequally - why should those in private sector get different pension to public sector? Imagine if minimum wage was different in private and public sector but that's what the current pension position is - absolute scandal.

It's just a job, all jobs have different term and conditions. In my line of work, there is a shortage of workers, so the public sector pay and conditions cannot be that good.

steampowered

arnoldy said:

Moving forwards time to have everyone on the same pensions to avoid the current apartheid. New joiners on Private or Government jobs get Defined Contributions. NO reason for new people entering the workplace to be treated differently for pension.

What you are forgetting is that people pay vastly different pension contributions. Public sector workers have good pensions but they also make big pension contributions. 

Police officers pay 11% into their pension.

Most private sector workers only pay 5% under auto enrolment.

Why would you get the same pension if you are paying 5%, compared to someone who is paying 11%? Now that would be ridiculous. 

facade

Public sector salaries have always been lower than the equivalent private sector, with the "reward" of a "great" pension at the end of it.

The 2013 reform knocked that back from "great" to "good".  I recall when they were presenting their moneysaving case for the reforms that the NUT had commissioned a review of the teachers pension, and concluded that the fund should be sufficiently in surplus to not to even need the reform.

Of course, there was no fund, as successive treasuries had simply spent it, assuming that they could raise the cash somehow to meet the payouts.

So we have a pension that bleeds off over 10% of salary as contributions, yet is apparently funded by the public purse, and it is "unfair" that public service pensions should be "better" than the state pension- when really it is "unfair" that state pensions are worse off.

michaels

I switched from the private to public sector taking a 35% pay cut as I think the CS pension value makes the packages of about equal value - eg 40k + pension in the CS = 60k in the private sector.

Oh and salaries are not generally lower in the public sector even before you include pensions, loads of research on this.

Grumpy_chap

arnoldy said: 

It is NOT fair that all our young people are treated unequally - why should those in private sector get different pension to public sector? Imagine if minimum wage was different in private and public sector but that's what the current pension position is - absolute scandal.

The intergenerational fairness thing is an important (and separate) discussion.

At what age would you consider it fair to treat people unequally?  (Given your concerns are expressed in the unfairness of treating young people unequally.)

If everyone has to have the same pension, as you suggest, would everyone also have to have the same salary?
The same suit?
Haircut?

The reference to NMW and whether that could be different in private and public sector is an incorrect analogy.  The minimum pension requirement is that set by the auto-enrolment rules.  Some employers offer that level of pension only.  Some employers offer much more than auto-enrolment.

sevenhills

michaels said:

Oh and salaries are not generally lower in the public sector even before you include pensions, loads of research on this.

I drive a bus that will take up to 16 passengers, Amazon are advertising for staff, paying 30p and hour more than my job.
The research states that local authorities pay less than other large organisations, but more than small companies.

hyubh

facade said:

Public sector salaries have always been lower than the equivalent private sector

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019

with the "reward" of a "great" pension at the end of it

There were lots of open private sector DB schemes during the 80s and 90s, the public sector wasn't particularly special on that. These schemes also had a similar focus - for example, generally speaking, part time workers were as discriminated against in the public sector as they were in the private sector, until covering legislation forced equal pension scheme eligibility.

I recall when they were presenting their moneysaving case for the reforms that the NUT had commissioned a review of the teachers pension, and concluded that the fund should be sufficiently in surplus to not to even need the reform.

There has never been a 'fund' for teachers pensions - they have always been unfunded, 'pay as you go'.

Of course, there was no fund, as successive treasuries had simply spent it, assuming that they could raise the cash somehow to meet the payouts.

No - there was no fund because teachers pensions were never structured like that in the first place.

So we have a pension that bleeds off over 10% of salary as contributions

'Bleeds'...? Pensions being contributory has been the normal situation for a long time - not sure why you think teachers should get special treatment...? Average contributions under the banded system are high because the benefits are excellent. 

yet is apparently funded by the public purse

Correct, they are. A contribution rate of only 10% is nothing like the cost of the pensions earned.

it is "unfair" that public service pensions should be "better" than the state pension- when really it is "unfair" that state pensions are worse off

They are different things - clearly so, since teachers get both!

MACKEM99

People might now understand why I have not bought extra years of state pension.

Dazed_and_C0nfused

MACKEM99 said:

People might now understand why I have not bought extra years of state pension.

I'm not sure that actually makes sense.

If the triple lock is scrapped it's not great but the cost of buying an annual pension of £275 with at least some element of inflation proofing is incredibly cheap.

Plenty are paying £160 to gain £275/year for what could be 30+ years of retirement.

Even paying a full years Class 3 NI at £800 makes it an absolute bargain compared to any other investment.  Even if it was fixed at £275/year for life it's worth doing.