British nurses facing life on the street
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why doesn't he put more in? An NHS employee at that level gets 9.3%.taken off them.anonymous said:
[redacted]
I said several pages ago I didn't accept the story's premise is valid.anonymous said:
[redacted]
If only he'd got a job in the public sector.Edited by Sheepshanks on Thursday 4th May 16:38
Sheepshanks said:
You're missing the point, probably on purpose. The comparison isn't false, I said it's irrelevant.
The point was made by Tonker, and is vigorously supported by you, that you can add 30%+ to an NHS workers salary because of the pension......
No that wasn't the point that was made at all (certainly not by me at least).The point was made by Tonker, and is vigorously supported by you, that you can add 30%+ to an NHS workers salary because of the pension......
My original quote was "a nurse is in effect 30% per month better off than somebody on similar pay provisioning for a similar level of retirement."
I never stated anything about simply adding 30% to the NHS workers salary.
Sheepshanks said:
You're missing the point, probably on purpose. The comparison isn't false, I said it's irrelevant.
The point was made by Tonker, and is vigorously supported by you, that you can add 30%+ to an NHS workers salary because of the pension - so that £35K NHS pay (this has jumped up quite a bit from the £28K being discussed yesterday, but never mind) is equivalent to £45.5K.
Yes, the value of the pay & benefits package of the NHS worker on £35k is broadly equivalent to a private sector worker on £45k, due to the value of the pension.The point was made by Tonker, and is vigorously supported by you, that you can add 30%+ to an NHS workers salary because of the pension - so that £35K NHS pay (this has jumped up quite a bit from the £28K being discussed yesterday, but never mind) is equivalent to £45.5K.
Of course that doesn't mean they have the same disposable cash in the short term, but it is an entirely valid and relevant comparison.
Sheepshanks said:
My point is simply that while that's super-awesome for the NHS person if they ever make it to retirement, they can't use it to pay today's bills.
I'm not sure anyone said they could.Sheepshank said:
The private sector worker on £45.5K could put nearly £13K into a pension to take them down to where the NHS worker is after their own contribution - but they're not likely to do that.
And if they did they'd be in broadly the same position as the NHS worker, hence the indication that the £35k NHS salary is broadly equivalent to the £45k private salary.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Edited by TSCfree on Thursday 4th May 17:21
TSCfree said:
L'oreal arguments aside, if you're a high flyer in the NHS and at the halfway point, that final salary pension (future accural) has now been averaged out (CARE). Salary progression is a big factor as to who are the winners and losers and yes of course, some will be better off with on the CARE scheme (Sidicks!), but lets make no mistake, rightly or wrongly this was introduced as a money saver and some people will have lost out.
And rightly or wrongly let's not pretend that they've lost out materially or that their reduced benefits are still not massively generous.In that context, whether the cost has changed from 35% to 32% or 30% or whatever is really neither here nor there. It's more a case of is a 30% taxpayer subsidy a) fair and b) valued as such by the recipients!
sidicks said:
TSCfree said:
L'oreal arguments aside, if you're a high flyer in the NHS and at the halfway point, that final salary pension (future accural) has now been averaged out (CARE). Salary progression is a big factor as to who are the winners and losers and yes of course, some will be better off with on the CARE scheme (Sidicks!), but lets make no mistake, rightly or wrongly this was introduced as a money saver and some people will have lost out.
And rightly or wrongly let's not pretend that they've lost out materially or that their reduced benefits are still not massively generous. - I'm not going into details, but I can't agree with the first part, however I agree with the second.In that context, whether the cost has changed from 35% to 32% or 30% or whatever is really neither here nor there. It's more a case of is a 30% taxpayer subsidy a) fair and b) valued as such by the recipients! - Not contended, it was merely a response to others saying the PS haven't had cuts to their pension too, which isn't true.
sidicks said:
In that context, whether the cost has changed from 35% to 32% or 30% or whatever is really neither here nor there. It's more a case of is a 30% taxpayer subsidy a) fair and b) valued as such by the recipients!
I guess the big question is - given the public sector pension is government backed and therefore tax payer funded (it is for all intents and purposes, a massively enhanced additional state pension), why aren't such schemes available to all tax payers.Moonhawk said:
I guess the big question is - given the public sector pension is government backed and therefore tax payer funded (it is for all intents and purposes, a massively enhanced additional state pension), why aren't such schemes available to all tax payers.
It's not affordable or sustainable for just the public sector, let alone for everyone!Moonhawk said:
I guess the big question is - given the public sector pension is government backed and therefore tax payer funded (it is for all intents and purposes, a massively enhanced additional state pension), why aren't such schemes available to all tax payers.
Once upon a time all (major) employers in the UK offered broadly the same defined benefits pension schemes: the public sector ones were not exceptional save in that they weren't (all) funded.Then Gordon Brown.
IroningMan said:
Once upon a time all (major) employers in the UK offered broadly the same defined benefits pension schemes: the public sector ones were not exceptional save in that they weren't (all) funded.
Then Gordon Brown.
The whole notion that DB pensions are not available in private sector is a total fabrication. Then Gordon Brown.
Part of the, rather tiresome, phesque mantra that public sector employees are ungrateful, incompetent and lazy.
jjlynn27 said:
The whole notion that DB pensions are not available in private sector is a total fabrication.
Part of the, rather tiresome, phesque mantra that public sector employees are ungrateful, incompetent and lazy.
I don't think I said or implied that there were no DB pensions in the private sector? As it happens my wife is a member of one.Part of the, rather tiresome, phesque mantra that public sector employees are ungrateful, incompetent and lazy.
I think you'll struggle to demonstrate that they're available to anything like as many people as they used to be, though.
jjlynn27 said:
The whole notion that DB pensions are not available in private sector is a total fabrication.
I don't think anybody has stated that they don't exist - however they must be quite rare as this article seems to confirm.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
I have worked for a number of companies - including large blue-chip and not one still had their DB pension schemes open, they had all switched to DC pensions many years before I joined. Even those companies that do still run them are closing them to new employees at an ever increasing rate.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 4th May 19:28
IroningMan said:
I don't think I said or implied that there were no DB pensions in the private sector? As it happens my wife is a member of one.
I think you'll struggle to demonstrate that they're available to anything like as many people as they used to be, though.
Apologies, it was a general comment, not really related to your post or targeted at you. I think you'll struggle to demonstrate that they're available to anything like as many people as they used to be, though.
Around 8 - 9 in 10 DB schemes that still exist in the UK are closed to new members.
No FTSE 100 has an open to new members scheme I think Shell was the last to close theirs about 4 or 5 years ago.
I'm not aware of any FTSE250 with a DB scheme open to new members, and around 3/4 I think have no DB scheme or have closed future accrual for existing members.
DB schemes still exist, but they are getting as rare as an extrovert in an actuaries conference
No FTSE 100 has an open to new members scheme I think Shell was the last to close theirs about 4 or 5 years ago.
I'm not aware of any FTSE250 with a DB scheme open to new members, and around 3/4 I think have no DB scheme or have closed future accrual for existing members.
DB schemes still exist, but they are getting as rare as an extrovert in an actuaries conference
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff