Public sector wellcome to the real world

Old_Slaphead · 2 July 2011 at 6:31PM

toshy wrote: »

My monthly contribution to my pension is currently £168 per month, the % we have to pay was increased in 2008
I will be working for a minimum of a further 5 years
My annual contribution has never been less than £428 p.a even in the first years
I have been working in the public sector since 1966
The lump sum is taxable if I choose to take it.
In 2008 I, like many other public sector workers chose to make additional AVC's on top of my % pension contribution in order to keep my pension at around £7,000 p.a.

Sorry you're simply talking rubbish (unless you didn't start paying into the pension until 1980s)

Average pay in 1966 was around £1000pa. You paid 42% pension - I don't think so!

To have paid £82000 contributions - leave out the AVCs, that's not part of the public sector scheme - you would need an average salary over 40 years of £35000 (so would probably be earning well over £50,000 by now).

If you're currently paying £168pm on an annual salary of £17000 that's 12% - twice as much as you should be - unless you're confusing the numbers by adding in AVCs again!

nb 1- from an earlier post - you can retire at 60 and take pre 2008 benefits without penalty.

nb 2 - the lump sum IS tax free

WhiteHorse · 2 July 2011 at 6:32PM

Starship9 wrote: »

This discussion is fuelled by one ingredient - ENVY

And that illustrates the contempt that the public sector has for the people that pay its wages.

Moby · 2 July 2011 at 6:38PM

Uglymug wrote: »

(long post - sorry - my point is made in the last paragraph)

Afraid you’ve got me wrong there, I’ve probably read the Daily Mail once, maybe twice in the last 3 years and I’m absolutely certain I haven’t purchased a copy in the last ten years. I’ve never been to prison, I’ve never abused a child, I don’t drive a merc or BMW (don’t sell drugs), I don’t work for a bank, I’ve never even been offered a cash back hander let alone accepted one and every penny I’ve earned has also been taxed at source. I’m just your average, hard working, non higher rate tax payer trying to make ends meet in the private sector. I drive a 6 year old Mondeo. I feel rather proud that I’ve never ever been unemployed for even a day. I’ve learnt to stand on my own two feet.

I seriously hope that if your doing your picketing at a school that your seeking some advice from your good wife regarding the way these school children are being abused. It’s fine example they’re being shown by their teachers in that if their parents are struggling financially and can’t afford to give them all their pocket money it’s alright to throw fits, scream and have tantrums.

Also, it sounds like you don’t sound very happy in your current job, you really must try and be brave and stand on your own feet and try and move on. In the private sector we’ve all learnt to fight our own battles and if we’re not happy with our current employment, if our terms change for example we try and find new employment. If we’re too useless to find new employment we’ve learnt to grin and bare it and suffer any changes foisted on us. I personally am now in my 5th job. I would never dream of depriving a school child of their education and in effect using them as cannon fodder to achieve this. Also, you say that there’s no benefits to your job, surely if you’re associating with drug dealers you could perhaps strike up a deal to temporarily help when things gets too bad. In the private sector one has learnt to take advantage of such opportunities.
I seriously hope that this government introduces new legalisation soon to combat these Unions, after the twin towers incident in New York we managed to rush through some laws to fight these terrorists. The same should be done now. If for example your pension is based on years service and you go on strike for a day how could anyone that is of a sound mind claim they’ve worked a full year, I think it’s perfectly reasonable in such cases for any one on strike to lose a full years pensionable service. The sooner this law is introduced the better. I need to write to my MP suggesting this.

Now, lets get down to some facts, since you’ve mentioned the Thatcher era I’d like to make you aware about some of the things done by the previous Government, things that didn’t affect you in your cotton wool enclosed public sector world. The one of the first things Brown did was raid my pension and introduced taxation on its income. We didn’t have the luxury that you currently have of it happening only on new contributions it also happened to our existing pot. In case you fail to comprehend the implications of this it was like introducing a 50% tax on your cash ISA and freezing it and not allowing you to take any money out. The same “No more Boom or Bust” chancellor also practically gave our gold away, it had been collected over centuries, it was called a gold reserve for a reason, to be used in hard times, Gold has now gone up 5 fold, it would now have help us greatly in our current crisis.

Many private sector investors (including me) lost money when the Government regulated Equitable Life pension company collapsed. When seeking compensation the labour MP Ruth Kelly stood up in the house of commons and said no compensation is warranted because only rich people invested in these Private Pension. Absolutely scandalous. I’m certainly in no way rich, I’d been contributing for about ten years. This had a Government Guarantee but it was worthless.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind paying taxes to pay people working in the public sector, I think the way the disabled are currently being treated is shocking, I’m also against the pension changes being foisted to women in their late 50s. I’m happy to pay my taxes for working teachers, police, nurses and everyone else who, I’m sure, are all doing a grand job.

A public sector worker with forty years pension entitlement could retire at 60, it doesn’t matter if he’s on 60ths or 80ths, by the time you factor in the pension contribution and national insurance he now won’t be paying, the increase in taxation allowance he will get, his state pension, he’ll end up on more than what he was on when working. With the increase in longevity rates he’ll probably on average live till about 90. That’s not a pension, that’s a 30 year holiday on full pay for 40 years service, this is obscene and a scandal, I as a tax payer absolutely refuse to pay it.
　
　

More bitterness from the virtuous private sector bod who has never had a day's dole in his life blah blah blah. I'm sorry mate you don't convince anyone. You are now squealing because you made the wrong choices in life with regard to providing for your retirement. You should blame the companies you worked for and their scams of having pension holidays and paying out bonuses and flash company cars instead. You were all mugs and bought it due to your corporate greed in the good times. Research has shown that Gordon Browns tax on pensions had very little impact in comparison!

Now its all gone bad and your suffering....As I said many of us never bought this Thatcherite dream in the first place. I'm looking forward to a good pension...circa 20K a year index linked and no matter what happens it won't change much because of my accrued rights to date. By the way my pension is self financing but even if it wasn't i deserve it for the reasons given! Welcome to the real world...didn't someone say somewhere!

Old_Slaphead · 2 July 2011 at 6:47PM

Starship9 wrote: »

So, at 51, I can draw my indexed pension and the tax free lump sum with it having been enhanced by a few years. Oh, and pocket a PILON payment because they screwed up the notice period.

While the private sector dream, I'll take and enjoy the fruits of making an informed decision, with any luck for more years than I worked.

Good luck to you but it just goes to show how public sector finances have been mismanaged over the last decade that allows retirement at such an early age and why the sector and PS pensions are badly in need of reform.

I hope you take comfort in knowing that the Government's largess will have to be paid for by someone. The rich have a way of worming out of such issues so it'll fall on the disabled, the disadvantaged, students and the younger generation to foot the bill.

Plus ca change.

toshy · 2 July 2011 at 8:23PM

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Sorry you're simply talking rubbish (unless you didn't start paying into the pension until 1980s)

Average pay in 1966 was around £1000pa. You paid 42% pension - I don't think so!

To have paid £82000 contributions - leave out the AVCs, that's not part of the public sector scheme - you would need an average salary over 40 years of £35000 (so would probably be earning well over £50,000 by now).

If you're currently paying £168pm on an annual salary of £17000 that's 12% - twice as much as you should be - unless you're confusing the numbers by adding in AVCs again!

nb 1- from an earlier post - you can retire at 60 and take pre 2008 benefits without penalty.

nb 2 - the lump sum IS tax free

Oldslaphead seems to enjoy picking holes in everything, aptly named, I’d say. Does he perchance work for the LEA which employs me??
If I’m talking rubbish perhaps he needs to inform them that they have given me incorrect information over the last 12 years.
What I gave was a generalisation but if it helps I will further explain my personal circumstances.
I began my service in the public sector working in the NHS as a medical lab technician. (now renamed as medical technologists or MLSO’s) A few years after starting work we received a considerable rise in salary (approx 30%, a major victory for the unions). I continued working in the NHS for over 15 years at which end point my salary was double that which I currently receive in the education sector. The £428 figure was an average figure over the first 8 years or so. I could give you a full break-down or even post my old payslips but I’m afraid I am not prepared to pander to your pedantic attitude.
I moved into the education sector following my divorce from my husband because although I had to work during school holidays, I was able to take my children into school during the school holidays whilst I worked, so saving on child-care costs which I could not have done in the NHS. When I left the NHS 14 years ago my annual salary was £23,000.
My final pension will be based on my salary over the 3 previous years before my retirement, no account is taken of previous salary.
The years in the NHS therefore contribute towards my pension but not to the final figure of my payable pension.
I pay 5.9% of my monthly gross salary i.e. approx £90 as a standard contribution towards my pension, the remainder is my AVC contribution which I have undertaken to pay in order to improve my final pension. (being sensible?) I consider this as part of my pension contribution?
Each year we receive a pension forecast from the LEA. In May 2007 my projected lump sum on retirement would have been considerably more than is now but it was frozen when the 2008 changes were implemented, and cannot increase.
There is now no automatic payment of a lump sum. Those in the scheme can choose to claim it but it became taxable after 2008 (just as is now the case with deferred state pension payments)
My pension prior to 2008 was based on the 1/80 rule but since 2008 it now is following the 1/60 rule. It clearly states on my latest pension forecast that if I retire before the age of 65 my benefits will be reduced. Had I been one year older I would have been protected from the new changes.
On the plus side the in service death grant has increased from twice to three times my salary. Depending on how long I may live after retirement, I could gain more if I die in service than in retirement. With the rising retirement age this could also prove detrimental to the cost of running the scheme as the number of staff currently dying in service is rising.
If I had retired at 60 I could only have claimed the pension accrued prior to 2008. Once I’d retired on that basis any payments made after that would be lost.
On the plus side for the government there is also a rising trend in the number of staff dying within 4-8 years of retirement.
Demand more of your workers, give them less, and kill them off quicker seems to be the agenda.
Next thing will be to bring in DNA testing to see who is likely to live longest and who is a low risk! (excuse the cynicism but some of the posts on this forum are leading me to feel that way)

ani 26 has a very good point. Neither state nor public sector pensions are sustainable in the current climate. It’s time for a major re-think and to allow every-one the opportunity to take responsibility for their own pension provision, the big problem is we all need to be able to afford to do that.

Moby · 2 July 2011 at 8:44PM

kidmugsy wrote: »

On this forum there are lots of queries and comments that suggest to me that public sector pensions are a ludicrously expensive way to attract and retain staff. If I were in charge, I'd safeguard your accrued rights and apart from that I'd close the pension schemes forthwith. Then by experiment I'd find what sorts of pay rises or pay cuts - or other changes in conditions - would get and keep the labour force I wanted. I'd guess that that would mean larger pay rises for some - e.g. people with rare skills, especially in expensive parts of the country - and smaller, or cuts, for others. My own inclination would be to try hard to keep individuals who've proved themselves to be reliable, loyal and competent, rather than taking punts on strangers: it's far too risky to cast aside experienced people with the right attitude. But be that as it may, the pension schemes are far too costly, especially as so many of the employees clearly have no concept of how expensive they are. Scrap 'em. In case I've not made myself clear, let me emphasise: every time a public employee denies how costly the pensions are (and therefore how valuable they are) the stronger he makes the case for scrapping them.

Under your own rules then judging by the quality of your posts...you'd be on the scrapheap forthwith!:rotfl:

toshy · 2 July 2011 at 8:55PM

kidmugsy wrote: »

On this forum there are lots of queries and comments that suggest to me that public sector pensions are a ludicrously expensive way to attract and retain staff. If I were in charge, I'd safeguard your accrued rights and apart from that I'd close the pension schemes forthwith. Then by experiment I'd find what sorts of pay rises or pay cuts - or other changes in conditions - would get and keep the labour force I wanted. I'd guess that that would mean larger pay rises for some - e.g. people with rare skills, especially in expensive parts of the country - and smaller, or cuts, for others. My own inclination would be to try hard to keep individuals who've proved themselves to be reliable, loyal and competent, rather than taking punts on strangers: it's far too risky to cast aside experienced people with the right attitude. But be that as it may, the pension schemes are far too costly, especially as so many of the employees clearly have no concept of how expensive they are. Scrap 'em. In case I've not made myself clear, let me emphasise: every time a public employee denies how costly the pensions are (and therefore how valuable they are) the stronger he makes the case for scrapping them.

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! ( I thought it was summer now, not spring?)

ani_26 · 2 July 2011 at 9:13PM

toshy wrote: »

ani 26 has a very good point. Neither state nor public sector pensions are sustainable in the current climate. It’s time for a major re-think and to allow every-one the opportunity to take responsibility for their own pension provision, the big problem is we all need to be able to afford to do that.

This, in my view, is the direction in which government policies are heading.

The only trouble with this is, of course, it will create the big divide, such as it has on this thread, of the ' have's ' and the ' have nots ' .

Those who can afford to pay into ANY pension plan, can provide for some semblance of a ' comfortable ' retirement, whilst those who simply cannot afford to pay into a pension plan. What happens to them?

toshy · 2 July 2011 at 10:04PM

ani_26 wrote: »

This, in my view, is the direction in which government policies are heading.

The only trouble with this is, of course, it will create the big divide, such as it has on this thread, of the ' have's ' and the ' have nots ' .

Those who can afford to pay into ANY pension plan, can provide for some semblance of a ' comfortable ' retirement, whilst those who simply cannot afford to pay into a pension plan. What happens to them?

There will need to be a move to bring public sector wages, working terms and conditions in line with the private sector, then the divide will be reduced.

toshy · 2 July 2011 at 10:06PM

Maybe now is a good time to look at just what public sector workers do and how their work impacts onto every member of the community and then consider the effects if they were not there or experienced staff had to be replaced by others.
Like it or not, public sector workers are the ones we all rely on to provide essential services.
Imagine if there was no police, no doctors, no nurses, no teachers, no fire brigade, no ambulances, no civil servants to process benefit claims, no job-centres, no railways, no bus drivers, no air space controllers, no dentists, no rubbish collections, no street lighting, no social workers.......I could go on and on. We all take them for granted and never even think about them or miss them until they are not there. Yet many are not paid to a level that even begins to reflect their value to the community.
There are some that a previous poster referred to as "fat cats" who are on large salaries, but these mostly are well-trained and experienced staff who either fulfill a role which others cannot do or are needed to pass on their expertise to the less experienced staff.
We could of course get butchers to carry out surgical operations, bank employees to teach maths, people who enjoy reading to teach English, gardeners with hose-pipes to put out fires, plumbers with a spanner to pull out teeth, white van men could ferry injured people to hospital, any mum could be a nurse, and we all could take turns to sweep the streets and be dustbinmen. That's an option, but how feasable??.... and how long before things go wrong??
Extreme? Yes maybe! But so too is not giving value to public sector workers!
Over to you....private sector gripers!

Public sector wellcome to the real world

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free