Boomer life according to the economist
Discussion
Panamax said:
There's a very good reason why Parliament fails to rein in the continuing, unaffordable generosity of public sector pensions. It's that MPs have awarded themselves the most generous public sector pensions of all!
MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
Ask someone to give up their (usually higher paying) job to become an MP and then after 5 years they risk getting booted out again by their fickle employers. No matter how good the pension it’s amazing that anyone talented wants the job and little surprise when we are disappointed with who we do get. MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
But that’s a different discussion…….
havoc said:
As I said above - do the maths. Like-for-like, public-sector pensions are RIDICULOUSLY valuable to an employee. And increasingly (& ridiculously) unafforable to an increasingly-stretched public purse.
Tied up in a call right now. Does anyone have a figure for the relative cost of the old page pensions and public sector pensions?Steve H said:
Panamax said:
There's a very good reason why Parliament fails to rein in the continuing, unaffordable generosity of public sector pensions. It's that MPs have awarded themselves the most generous public sector pensions of all!
MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
Ask someone to give up their (usually higher paying) job to become an MP and then after 5 years they risk getting booted out again by their fickle employers. No matter how good the pension it’s amazing that anyone talented wants the job and little surprise when we are disappointed with who we do get. MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
But that’s a different discussion…….
The incentive should be to do a good job while you're in post, not give them a comfy retirement once they've f
ked it up.havoc said:
borcy said:
The bloke in the pub may well have not done a Like-for-like job in the above example.
By not being a soldier? Think you're splitting hairs there...What about all the mechanics and engineers in the Armed Forces. Or the logistics guys? Medics? Administrators? The Army has a very big tail behind the guys at the sharp-end...
People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
NickZ24 said:
borcy said:
Not really splitting hairs.
People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
heheheh splitting hairs: mechanics, drivers, engineers, the logistics guys, plus Medics and Administrators in the Armed Forces.People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
What is splitting hairs here?
borcy said:
Not really splitting hairs.
People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
You've lost me. You were suggesting that the Forces chap wasn't doing the same job as a civilian, right? I pointed out that there are many forces jobs that ARE the same as in the civvy world, to all intents/purposes, and that they probably are like-for-like.People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
...so what's the beef now?
havoc said:
borcy said:
Not really splitting hairs.
People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
You've lost me. You were suggesting that the Forces chap wasn't doing the same job as a civilian, right? I pointed out that there are many forces jobs that ARE the same as in the civvy world, to all intents/purposes, and that they probably are like-for-like.People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
...so what's the beef now?
We're getting a bit off topic
havoc said:
borcy said:
Not really splitting hairs.
People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
You've lost me. You were suggesting that the Forces chap wasn't doing the same job as a civilian, right? I pointed out that there are many forces jobs that ARE the same as in the civvy world, to all intents/purposes, and that they probably are like-for-like.People in the forces (unless your infantry) are the same as outside?
...so what's the beef now?
You believe it, i doubt there's anything anyone could say that change your mind.
Edited by borcy on Wednesday 8th May 22:51
OoopsVoss said:
NRS said:
Where will that funding come from to pay for the big spending? It will in theory pay for itself but that will take a long time to come through, and worst case it fails again and you have spent even more.
You say talk of tax on boomer wealth (houses, IHT etc is not right, yet most wealth is concentrated in their generation - partly completely naturally as they have had their whole life to build wealth. But also because of the demographics and policies discussed previously that aren’t being repeated. So if we should not go after that wealth who is going to pay for the massive costs of levelling up across the country?
You have heard of debt, correct?You say talk of tax on boomer wealth (houses, IHT etc is not right, yet most wealth is concentrated in their generation - partly completely naturally as they have had their whole life to build wealth. But also because of the demographics and policies discussed previously that aren’t being repeated. So if we should not go after that wealth who is going to pay for the massive costs of levelling up across the country?
For the umpteenth time, the UK has one of the lowest debt to GDP burdens in the G7. It has borrowing capacity that others do not.
Depends on how you count it, UK debt to GDP is between 100-108% G7 average is around 125-130%.
As long as you spend it right and cut your cost base to help fund it, you can run high than history debt to GDP ratios.
And wealth is concentrated regionally, should we tax London more?
C'mon, lose the dogma and look at the world without prejudice.
I don't think it is sustainable with the model we have now. It's not a financial issue but a political one. Increased debt is used to fund the popular vote at the detriment to long term financial sustainability.
I know it's not isolated to the UK, it's a developed world issue. And as each year the interest payments take a bit % of the tax revenue, you reach a point where the cost of debt increases to a point of no-return.
BandOfBrothers said:
Steve H said:
Panamax said:
There's a very good reason why Parliament fails to rein in the continuing, unaffordable generosity of public sector pensions. It's that MPs have awarded themselves the most generous public sector pensions of all!
MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
Ask someone to give up their (usually higher paying) job to become an MP and then after 5 years they risk getting booted out again by their fickle employers. No matter how good the pension it’s amazing that anyone talented wants the job and little surprise when we are disappointed with who we do get. MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
But that’s a different discussion…….
The incentive should be to do a good job while you're in post, not give them a comfy retirement once they've f
ked it up.ked it up, some kind of pension that recognises the lack of security seems appropriate. If we want to attract more impressive people then we need to make it less thankless all round.
Steve H said:
BandOfBrothers said:
Steve H said:
Panamax said:
There's a very good reason why Parliament fails to rein in the continuing, unaffordable generosity of public sector pensions. It's that MPs have awarded themselves the most generous public sector pensions of all!
MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
Ask someone to give up their (usually higher paying) job to become an MP and then after 5 years they risk getting booted out again by their fickle employers. No matter how good the pension it’s amazing that anyone talented wants the job and little surprise when we are disappointed with who we do get. MPs can qualify for two different pensions simultaneously, the MPs Pension Scheme and also a scheme for Ministers called the Ministerial Pension Scheme. Both are Defined Benefit schemes that more or less disappeared from the private sector a long time ago.
Depending how much they contribute themselves MPs can get a full 2/3rds pension after just 27 years.
Ministers can get another pension on top and even if they "retire" early there's no reduction for early payment.
But that’s a different discussion…….
The incentive should be to do a good job while you're in post, not give them a comfy retirement once they've f
ked it up.ked it up, some kind of pension that recognises the lack of security seems appropriate. If we want to attract more impressive people then we need to make it less thankless all round.
Re-election bonus of up to 50% of base salary dependent on increasing vote share.
Would need some thought about KPIs for oppostion MPs though.
Just link it to GDP growth per capita. That’s the rising tide that floats all boats.
Sure there will be other promises and things to measure, but I’d just let the voters do that and let MPs be judged at the ballot box for it. (Ie. If you deliver growth but you annoy all your constituents in doing it, you might lose your job)
Sure there will be other promises and things to measure, but I’d just let the voters do that and let MPs be judged at the ballot box for it. (Ie. If you deliver growth but you annoy all your constituents in doing it, you might lose your job)
brickwall said:
Just link it to GDP growth per capita. That’s the rising tide that floats all boats.
I'd suggest average pay - you can get idiosyncratic economic structure like Ireland's that makes GDP not terribly representative. Feel this should hold true for state pension and MP compensation.Biggy Stardust said:
Do those in receipt of public sector pensions also get OAP or not?
Everyone does (well, NIC contributions dependent).Total state pension payout p.a. is £112bn.
Total public sector pension scheme "cost" p.a. is close to £180bn...for <25% of pensioners (best I can work out - current public sector e'ees are 18% of workforce).
Just glad I have a boomer pension even though I am Generation X
The CEGB pension scheme expected people on average to live to ~68 so retirement was at 60 with 2/3 salary
When they privatised us, they passed primary legislation that anyone in the industry at the time had to by law have the same pension rights as they did prior to privatisation.
Very very expensive for the employer, but hey ho.
The CEGB pension scheme expected people on average to live to ~68 so retirement was at 60 with 2/3 salary
When they privatised us, they passed primary legislation that anyone in the industry at the time had to by law have the same pension rights as they did prior to privatisation.
Very very expensive for the employer, but hey ho.
Gary C said:
The CEGB pension scheme expected people on average to live to ~68 so retirement was at 60 with 2/3 salary
And herein lies the issue, not just with the CEGB pension with almost any pension from the 1970s/80/90s. The money put aside was for people expected to live at most 10/12 years after retirement, whereas they're actually living to up to 30 or 40 years after retirement. The people paying for that are today's workers, and tomorrow's workers. Meanwhile those pensions no longer exist, and so today's workers are also having to put aside money in their own DC pots, as well as paying for yesterday's DB pots. Not only that but someone living to 80 or 90 requires a lot more health and social care than someone living to 70.
The whole system is completely broken, people complain about how public services are not as good as they used to be, and the bemoan the state of the armed forces, etc, and there are 2 simple answers - one is the amount spent on social security (healthcare, social care and pensions) is astronomical, and secondly the productivity of the working population is not even stable but is actually decreasing.
We are getting poorer while attempting to pay for vastly increased costs, which is ultimately being funded by debt. The amount of interest paid on debt 2 years ago was more than the police, courts, prisons, armed forces, and fire brigade combined.
Steve H said:
Condi said:
and secondly the productivity of the working population is not even stable but is actually decreasing.
Bloody work-shy millennials 
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff