Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !
UglyMug_2
Posts: 4 Newbie
A Public Sector worker earning £30,000 contributing 10% (£3,000) a year for 40 years will get an index linked pension of £20,000 (based on 1/60ths). Current life expectancy means they’ll receive this for about 20 years. This was acceptable, a few years ago when life expectancy meant they’d receive it for about 5 years. This is not acceptable now, annuity rates have dropped to a third (a £100,000 annuity now pays £3,333, it paid £10,000 twenty years ago), in the last 6 months alone annuities have gone down by almost another tenth. In twenty years the cost of private pensions has gone up threefold whilst Public Sector pensions have remained unscathed.
When they retire their pension contributions and national insurance payments will cease (thus saving them over 20%), their (age related) tax code will commence and they’ll also get a state pension (it’s being proposed this is raised to circa £7,000 a year soon). Their net income will be greater during retirement than when they worked. This is totally unjust and a mockery to other pensioners. The vast majority of this injustice will be funded by the Tax Payer.
Paying £3,000 a year for 40 years to receive £20,000 a year for 20 years is an exceptional deal. It’s absolutely ludicrous that they’re going on strike because they’re expected to pay a bit more, or work a bit longer, or receive a bit less.
In the Private Sector paying this £3,000 a year may just mean one escapes means testing in retirement. Any insurance company that forecasts a pension even close to £20,000 a year for this sum is lying.
I now expect to receive various responses to this post from the feel sorry for the Public Sector brigade saying that I’ve got the wrong view of how the deck chairs are arranged on their Titanic:
Namely:
1) The figures are incorrect – They’re close enough.
2) They’re on a 1/80ths scheme - Oh dear they might have to take a slight drop in income when they retire compared to when they worked.
3) They haven’t had a pay rise for 3 years – One way of reducing the costs of their final salary based pension is to slowly reduce their final salary.
4) They earn less than £30,000 – Then the comparable increase in their income during retirement will be even greater.
5) Their pensions are fully funded – These types of pensions ceased in the Private Sector because their liabilities can not be calculated, the shortfall in their schemes will have to be met by the tax payer.
6) They work very hard – Don’t we all?
7) They can’t work when they get too old – Neither can the rest of us.
8) Their employer makes additional pension contributions - This is in effect extra pay, do their Unions add this when negotiating their salaries?
9) They don’t have 40 years in the Public Sector – Then they should have funded the rest of their pension from their time in the Private Sector and realise what a wonderful scheme they’re now on.
10) Everyone in the Private Sector has a company car – Which planet are these people on?
11) They also pay taxes – Which is 20% of their income, do they go to the pub with their mate and buy them a pint after they’ve been bought 5?
12) The Private Sector should demand better pensions – If Private Sector companies had to fund similar schemes they wouldn’t survive and there wouldn’t be a Private Sector and then there wouldn’t be a Public Sector.
They’ll have a million other reason for these strikes and believing the utter rubbish spouted to them by their Unions. The real and only reason is their unfettered and totally blinkered GREED.
When they retire their pension contributions and national insurance payments will cease (thus saving them over 20%), their (age related) tax code will commence and they’ll also get a state pension (it’s being proposed this is raised to circa £7,000 a year soon). Their net income will be greater during retirement than when they worked. This is totally unjust and a mockery to other pensioners. The vast majority of this injustice will be funded by the Tax Payer.
Paying £3,000 a year for 40 years to receive £20,000 a year for 20 years is an exceptional deal. It’s absolutely ludicrous that they’re going on strike because they’re expected to pay a bit more, or work a bit longer, or receive a bit less.
In the Private Sector paying this £3,000 a year may just mean one escapes means testing in retirement. Any insurance company that forecasts a pension even close to £20,000 a year for this sum is lying.
I now expect to receive various responses to this post from the feel sorry for the Public Sector brigade saying that I’ve got the wrong view of how the deck chairs are arranged on their Titanic:
Namely:
1) The figures are incorrect – They’re close enough.
2) They’re on a 1/80ths scheme - Oh dear they might have to take a slight drop in income when they retire compared to when they worked.
3) They haven’t had a pay rise for 3 years – One way of reducing the costs of their final salary based pension is to slowly reduce their final salary.
4) They earn less than £30,000 – Then the comparable increase in their income during retirement will be even greater.
5) Their pensions are fully funded – These types of pensions ceased in the Private Sector because their liabilities can not be calculated, the shortfall in their schemes will have to be met by the tax payer.
6) They work very hard – Don’t we all?
7) They can’t work when they get too old – Neither can the rest of us.
8) Their employer makes additional pension contributions - This is in effect extra pay, do their Unions add this when negotiating their salaries?
9) They don’t have 40 years in the Public Sector – Then they should have funded the rest of their pension from their time in the Private Sector and realise what a wonderful scheme they’re now on.
10) Everyone in the Private Sector has a company car – Which planet are these people on?
11) They also pay taxes – Which is 20% of their income, do they go to the pub with their mate and buy them a pint after they’ve been bought 5?
12) The Private Sector should demand better pensions – If Private Sector companies had to fund similar schemes they wouldn’t survive and there wouldn’t be a Private Sector and then there wouldn’t be a Public Sector.
They’ll have a million other reason for these strikes and believing the utter rubbish spouted to them by their Unions. The real and only reason is their unfettered and totally blinkered GREED.
0
Comments
-
the public sector pensions are much better than the poorer private sector pensions
so it certainly makes sense to have a productive an far reaching investigation of what the appropriate pension provision should be for all workers
sadly no-one seems to be interestd in doing so0 -
The current cohort life expectancy for a 60 year old man is more like 28 years and another couple for a woman. Many people use the life expectancy at birth figures by mistake.A Public Sector worker earning £30,000 contributing 10% (£3,000) a year for 40 years will get an index linked pension of £20,000 (based on 1/60ths). Current life expectancy means they’ll receive this for about 20 years.0 -
the public sector pensions are much better than the poorer private sector pensions
so it certainly makes sense to have a productive an far reaching investigation of what the appropriate pension provision should be for all workers
sadly no-one seems to be interestd in doing so
Raising the State pension and reducing these Public Sector Pension would be a good start.
I didn't notice any Public Sector worker going on Strike when it was suggested their State Pension was increased by £40 per week.0 -
12) The Private Sector should demand better pensions – If Private Sector companies had to fund similar schemes they wouldn’t survive and there wouldn’t be a Private Sector and then there wouldn’t be a Public Sector.
They’ll have a million other reason for these strikes and believing the utter rubbish spouted to them by their Unions. The real and only reason is their unfettered and totally blinkered GREED.
You've forgotten No 13...
13) I'm too stupid to realise, even after the proposed changes, how fantastic these pensions really are so I'm going to do as I am told and go on strike (even though I'll still be receiving the pension for almost twice as long as I expected when I started work and there are lots of inbuilt guarantees so I can't really lose out). In fact, I don't really understand very much about these pension-thingies at all so I'm really glad that I don't have to have all that responsibility and stress of looking after my own - those nice people in the pensions dept. look after it all for me. Phew!0 -
You also forgot No 14
14) The strike vote only had a 33% turn out, with union members accounting for around 57% of the public sector - meaning only around 20% of public sector workers actually voted to strike!
Stop b!tching about the 'greedy public sector' as if a few union pros and a handful of their sheep actually represent the rest of us - its insulting and boring.0 -
Raising the State pension and reducing these Public Sector Pension would be a good start.
I didn't notice any Public Sector worker going on Strike when it was suggested their State Pension was increased by £40 per week.
yes I rather favour the continental approach to pensions
larger taxpayer funded pension for all workers and less occupational provision (both state and private)0 -
You also forgot No 14
14) The strike vote only had a 33% turn out, with union members accounting for around 57% of the public sector - meaning only around 20% of public sector workers actually voted to strike!
Stop b!tching about the 'greedy public sector' as if a few union pros and a handful of their sheep actually represent the rest of us - its insulting and boring.
So, there’s going to be a strike because of the apathy of the Union members who couldn’t be bothered to vote “NO”. Shouldn’t these rules be changed?0 -
yes I rather favour the continental approach to pensions
larger taxpayer funded pension for all workers and less occupational provision (both state and private)
That would be a good idea.
Personally I don't blame them for striking. I would do the same if I was in their position. The same as any other contract, they signed up to one deal and now it's being changed. I would be p*&^%ed too.
In this country we seem to have an attitude that because the private sector get treated worse, we should bring the public sector down to the same level. Instead we should be trying to find a solution that improves the lot of those working in the private sector.0 -
serious_saver wrote: »That would be a good idea.
Personally I don't blame them for striking. I would do the same if I was in their position. The same as any other contract, they signed up to one deal and now it's being changed. I would be p*&^%ed too.
In this country we seem to have an attitude that because the private sector get treated worse, we should bring the public sector down to the same level. Instead we should be trying to find a solution that improves the lot of those working in the private sector.
Totally agree with this post.
This is the main issue of unfairness here- "they signed up to one deal and now it's being changed".
And rather than a race to the bottom "we should be trying to find a solution that improves the lot of those working in the private sector."0 -
if it wa just the pensions alone then they may have been willing to go along. however its a lot more that that and even the moderate unions that have never stuck have had enough. maybe go and chat to a nurse or care worker. tell them that they are spoilt. now lets see have the bankers pensions been reduced mmm i bet not. oh hang on we cant punish those that got us into this mess lets blame the public workers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards