Cut old people's benefits, they'll die soon anyway
Discussion
turbobloke said:
https://chriscroft.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/life-e...
The Boeing and Lockheed numbers should be verifiable, there's a further link to follow (CBA as this was a passing comment initially) and apart from the tongue in cheek afterthought about The Guardian which I can't comment on
the idea doesn't seem so unlikely after all.
TBThe Boeing and Lockheed numbers should be verifiable, there's a further link to follow (CBA as this was a passing comment initially) and apart from the tongue in cheek afterthought about The Guardian which I can't comment on
the idea doesn't seem so unlikely after all.Here is a link to ONS information about life expectancy of teachers looking at 5-year averages between 1982-1986 and 2002-2006.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-trans...
This shows an average life expectancy of around 18 years (at age 65) at the start of the period, increasing to circa 21 years at the end of the period.
I refuse to accept that 10 years previously the average life expectancy at age 65 was some 15 year lower...
Supporting the above, I note that England & Wales Life tables for 1971 show population expectation of life at age 65 of 12 years for men and 16 years for women. These are averages for all socio-economic groups and teachers would be expected to have higher life expectancy than the general population.
sidicks said:
turbobloke said:
https://chriscroft.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/life-e...
The Boeing and Lockheed numbers should be verifiable, there's a further link to follow (CBA as this was a passing comment initially) and apart from the tongue in cheek afterthought about The Guardian which I can't comment on the idea doesn't seem so unlikely after all.
TBThe Boeing and Lockheed numbers should be verifiable, there's a further link to follow (CBA as this was a passing comment initially) and apart from the tongue in cheek afterthought about The Guardian which I can't comment on
the idea doesn't seem so unlikely after all.Here is a link to ONS information about life expectancy of teachers looking at 5-year averages between 1982-1986 and 2002-2006.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-trans...
This shows an average life expectancy of around 18 years (at age 65) at the start of the period, increasing to circa 21 years at the end of the period.
I refuse to accept that 10 years previously the average life expectancy at age 65 was some 15 year lower...
as it's not occupation-specific for tecahers.I had seen that webpage previously - it's where I got the information that ONS don't collect tagged data for occupations, only socio-economic classification, a point which I mentioned in my post.
ONS at the link said:
Thank you for your request. Unfortunately, the ONS do not produce longevity figures by individual occupation...We have, however, produced Life Expectancy by the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification, which is a classification based on occupation.
Which is what I said.The data is there, you are free to disbelieve what was posted. It's not my data so I have no dog in this fight but I do recall the Guardian article and one before it.
Derek Smith said:
I see I was wrong when I said I' not sure you understand. It is clear you do not.
There was no pension fund, so the police scheme was a way of reducing the cost of policing for the government.
I understand how the public sector unfunded scheme work - the clue is in the name!There was no pension fund, so the police scheme was a way of reducing the cost of policing for the government.
Derek Smith said:
The police paid 12% in real terms. On top of that the pay scales took into account the 'benefits' of the pension. So at the one time, although this occurred in all such pay 'negotiations' ( the police side did not negotiate, they were told) the pay was reduced by over 5%, this at a time when the 'pension' paid out considerably less than the 12% reduction in pay. On top of that, there's the further 5% of gross, so somewhere about 16% creaming off.
What the pension 'paid out' at the time was irrelevant.Derek Smith said:
Given that over 50% of police officers died within 3-5 years after retirement, that's not taking into consideration the age at retirement, then you can see that the amount of money being creamed off was far in excess of the need.
I'm very dubious about this claim given that average life expectancy for the social economic class would have been more like 20 years at age 55.Derek Smith said:
Has this excess been invested - some hopes of course - there would have been even more excess.
That the life expectancy increased is not the argument. It is that the style of pension was nothing to do with pension. It was a grab back of policing costs, paid for out of the PC's pay.
The government has changed the pension arrangements, and one would hope that they are no longer taking the profits. There was a time, a few short years, when police officers got a benefit. Does it go over and above what was paid in by the police before that time? Of course not.
So the moans about the future is for a very few.
You have no idea of the way the pension was used to milk the pay of police officers, and at a time when they had to work 20+ hours of overtime a week just to make a living wage.
Note that the Police's own pension document available on their website refers to the 1987 scheme costing over 33% of salary per annum...That the life expectancy increased is not the argument. It is that the style of pension was nothing to do with pension. It was a grab back of policing costs, paid for out of the PC's pay.
The government has changed the pension arrangements, and one would hope that they are no longer taking the profits. There was a time, a few short years, when police officers got a benefit. Does it go over and above what was paid in by the police before that time? Of course not.
So the moans about the future is for a very few.
You have no idea of the way the pension was used to milk the pay of police officers, and at a time when they had to work 20+ hours of overtime a week just to make a living wage.
Just doing some rough calculations:
1. Paying 12% per year for 30 years gives you a pension of 2/3rds of final salary
2. The pension is inflation-linked which is around 80% more expensive than a flat pension)
3. Based on the above, the retirement lifetime to equate the contributions and pension payments would be just 3 years
4. Interest has been ignored but so has salary inflation and the two factors will offset to some degree. You paid contributions on your actual salary at the time, but the pension is based on you final salary
5. In addition there are various other benefits including enhanced ill-health retirement and most importantly a spouse's pension so that even if you do die after 5 years (which I strongly dispute) 50% of the pensions would continue to be paid to the spouse (with a life expectancy of 20+ years...)
Maybe you can argue that for various other reasons you paid in more than 12% of your salary, but it's clearly the case that this amount alone would be nowhere near sufficient to fund the promised pensions.
HTH
turbobloke said:
Except that the link doesn't give what you claim for it as it's not occupation-specific for teachers.
Ok, agreed. It's the data for the socio-economic group to which teachers are allocated. so we would expect some variation within the group but not 3 years to 18 years !! as it's not occupation-specific for teachers.My point still stands.
The Government Actuary's department 2012 valuation for the TPS included a mortality analysis that found actual mortality experience for the scheme was slightly worse (males) and better (females) than that for pension schemes in general. Of course due to the selection effect, mortality of pensioners within pension schemes is materially lower (i.e. life expectancy is materially higher) than the population as a whole.
Interestingly, the actuary recommended an increase in the assumed male life expectancy at age 65 from 20.4 years (2004 valuation) to 23.9 years (2008) to 24.2 years (2012). al substantially above that of the general population...
syncii said:
Need to be careful quoting life expectancy wrt company pension defined benefit scheme funds.
This is based on actual (independent) experience produced by the institute of actuaries.syncii said:
Govts have a vested interest inflating life expectancy figures (in addition to deliberately deflating the value of assets).
That makes absolutely no sense - most government pension schemes are unfunded, and for those that are funded, inflating life expectancy would just increase the deficits!syncii said:
It gives the Govt and private companies an opportunity to either close the fund or look for pension fund members to contribute a lot more.
Makes even less sense. Few private companies still have open DB pension schemes. For the remainder, the company has to pay any additional contributions, not the member, and the Trustees will pressure the company to bring forward deficit contributions.
syncii said:
Companies didn't do this in the past as they could take pension holidays such that their pension contributions were often lower than they would have been had they offered a defined contribution scheme from the outset.
Taking a pension holiday is irrelevant if the scheme is in deficit!syncii said:
sidicks I worked as a Trustee on the Company Pension Fund for many years and attended many Pension workshops etc and know the ins and outs of how Pension schemes work.
All of what I have said so far is correct.
Deny as you wish.
For the reasons I have set out above, you are wrong. All of what I have said so far is correct.
Deny as you wish.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sure why not just cull everyone over the age of 67.Anyways .5% rates who is this helping. Ahhh people with liar loans that's who. You know those loans that people can't now get and who "made up" the prices of those homes and BTLs and accepted the over inflated values so they could lend more and get a bigger bonus.
Sure flog a dead pensioners the liar loan brigade can't afford those horses now.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
TonkerJust to support your previous post. Here is the 2012 valuation report from the GAD on the mortality of members of the police pension scheme.
Mortality seems to be in line with other pension schemes (i.e. materially better than the population as a whole).
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Key assumptions for future mortality suggest an expectation of life at age 55 (males) of 32.8 years.
Yes, you read that right, 32.8 years rather than Derek's claim of 3 years.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 15:26
syncii said:
OK I must be wrong then.
1. What you've said makes absolutely no economic sense (for the reasons I've set out).2. Insurance companies were using more prudent longevity assumptions that pension funds who are now gradually being forced to catch up. The opposite of what you claim is actually borne out in practice - longevity assumptions for pension funds have repeatedly been strengthened over the last 10+ years. These increase have been phased in gradually to allow schemes to manage their deficit positions.
syncii said:
Come to think of it, what a waste of my time all those years spent on Pension committees was. If only I had spoken to you first.
It does seem as though you didn't understand what was being told to you over this period.I guess it's a good job you're not a pension scheme actuary!
sidicks said:
turbobloke said:
Except that the link doesn't give what you claim for it as it's not occupation-specific for teachers.
Ok, agreed. It's the data for the socio-economic group to which teachers are allocated. so we would expect some variation within the group but not 3 years to 18 years !! as it's not occupation-specific for teachers.My point still stands.
Also, yes I would expect that degree of variation given the Lockheed and Boeing average pension colletion periods of around 18 months, not even 2 years.
Here is the list of occupations conflated with teachers in the link you gave:
PDF file at the ONS link said:
Examples of occupations included
1.1
Large employers and higher managerial
Senior officials in national and local government; directors and chief executives of major organisations; officers in the armed forces
1.2
Higher professional
Civil engineers, medical practitioners, physicists, geologists, IT strategy and planning professionals, legal professionals, architects
2
Lower managerial and professional
Teachers in primary and secondary schools, quantity surveyors, public service administrative professionals, social workers, nurses, IT technicians
3
Intermediate
NCOs and other ranks in the Armed Forces, graphic designers, medical and dental technicians, Civil Service administrative officers and local government clerical officers, counter clerks, school and company secretaries
4
Small employers and own account workers
Hairdressing and beauty salon proprietors, shopkeepers, dispensing opticians in private practice, farmers, self-employed taxi drivers
5
Lower supervisory and technical
Bakers and flour confectioners, screen-printers, plumbers, electricians and motor mechanics employed by others, gardeners, rail transport operatives
6
Semi-routine
Pest control officers, clothing cutters, traffic wardens, scaffolders, assemblers of vehicles, farm workers, veterinary nurses and assistants, shelf fillers
7
Routine
Hairdressing employees, floral arrangers, sewing machinists, van, bus and coach drivers, labourers, hotel porters, bar staff, cleaners and domestics, road sweepers, car park attendants
The stress level of the occupation is clearly a significant variable that matters. Look at those occupations included with teachers in the link you gave claiming it was for teachers, which are two our of around 40 or more categories. Retiring after a lifetime of classroom teaching is hardly at the same level as gardeners. If not all were covered, including teachers in primary and secondary schools with quantity surveyors, public service administrative professionals, social workers, nurses and IT technicians is still too broad.1.1
Large employers and higher managerial
Senior officials in national and local government; directors and chief executives of major organisations; officers in the armed forces
1.2
Higher professional
Civil engineers, medical practitioners, physicists, geologists, IT strategy and planning professionals, legal professionals, architects
2
Lower managerial and professional
Teachers in primary and secondary schools, quantity surveyors, public service administrative professionals, social workers, nurses, IT technicians
3
Intermediate
NCOs and other ranks in the Armed Forces, graphic designers, medical and dental technicians, Civil Service administrative officers and local government clerical officers, counter clerks, school and company secretaries
4
Small employers and own account workers
Hairdressing and beauty salon proprietors, shopkeepers, dispensing opticians in private practice, farmers, self-employed taxi drivers
5
Lower supervisory and technical
Bakers and flour confectioners, screen-printers, plumbers, electricians and motor mechanics employed by others, gardeners, rail transport operatives
6
Semi-routine
Pest control officers, clothing cutters, traffic wardens, scaffolders, assemblers of vehicles, farm workers, veterinary nurses and assistants, shelf fillers
7
Routine
Hairdressing employees, floral arrangers, sewing machinists, van, bus and coach drivers, labourers, hotel porters, bar staff, cleaners and domestics, road sweepers, car park attendants
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 7th October 15:35
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well there is the contradiction right there....People did pay down their mortgage (if they were allowed to do so) due to the low rates meaning they didn't actually spend anyway but they seem to be spending now which leads me on to this...
7 years is a long long time for low rates.
People coming into the game now or those with a short memory actually don't realise that rates can go up.
Yes people are as thick as this. It's getting off topic but it's another time bomb unless they start rising even, if it is by a very small amount.
turbobloke said:
The stress level of the occupation is clearly a significant variable that matters. Look at those occupations included with teachers in the link you gave claiming it was for teachers, which are two our of around 40 or more categories. Retiring after a lifetime of classroom teaching is hardly at the same level as gardeners.
In that case I'm very interested to hear what amazing changes have taken place such that teacher expected life at age 65 has increased 7 fold, from just 3 years to 24 years (2012 valuation) over a period when the figure for that economic class as a whole has increased from 18 to just 21 years!Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 15:40
syncii said:
It is fairly clear (to me and the rest of my Pension trustee colleagues anyway) that the only way the Govt could exit itself from potentially expensive DB schemes is/was to provide circumstances whereby Private DB schemes could not afford to continue in their existing form and either close or allow them to offer a DC scheme alternative.
As above, this makes no sense - what liability do the government have to private DB schemes?syncii said:
Only then could the Govt be in a position to attack Civil Service/NHS/Police/Fire Service etc DB schemes in order to reduce any perceived increase in financial burden to the public purse.
You fail to acknowledge that increasing life expectancy is consistent across all major economies and the analysis is carried out by an independent professional body.syncii said:
Very smart accountancy (yes it happens even in pension funds) has allowed PF deficits to be wildly exaggerated.
You ignore the fact that exaggerated deficits lead to increased company contributions and constraints on dividends being paid which no company wants. Increased market focus on a company's liability for the pension scheme means that no company wants to exaggerate the extent of the deficit on its balance sheet.syncii said:
For example, a Defined Benefit Pension fund must include a figure for expected wage inflation. Where I worked, this (imaginary) figure was 5.5% compound. The actual wage inflation figure was less than 1%. So, in effect, the deficit appeared to be much larger.
Assumptions need to be viewed in conjunction with the other assumption - exaggerating the salary increases also exaggerates the contorbutions being paid, so this provides an offset.What were the assumptions for interest rates and investment growth?
Current wage inflation is irrelevant to the long term level, unless there is some fixed level which won't be exceeded?
syncii said:
I have no doubt that the Govt has performed the same trick to inflate the deficit.
???syncii said:
And no. I don't believe the life expectancy figures branded about. Not saying that life expectancy isn't higher than it was 50 years ago, but the Govt have a vested interest in making this figure (and other applicable statistics) as high as possible as it "forces" DB schemes (including their own) to eventually close.
You still ignore the facts.And still haven't explained why governments would want DB schemes to close.
syncii said:
I am a recipient of a DB scheme pension and have no axe to grind here, just stating what Pension Funds do in real life.
You are wrong.Can I just confirm that, as a fund trustee, you knew that the valuation for your fund was being manipulated and did nothing about it? Do you even know what the responsibilities of a scheme trustee are?
sidicks said:
turbobloke said:
The stress level of the occupation is clearly a significant variable that matters. Look at those occupations included with teachers in the link you gave claiming it was for teachers, which are two our of around 40 or more categories. Retiring after a lifetime of classroom teaching is hardly at the same level as gardeners.
In that case I'm very interested to hear what amazing changes have taken place such that teacher expected life at age 65 has increased 7 fold from 3 years to 24 years over a period when the figure for that economic class as a whole has increased from 18 to 21 years Take your pick from this random selection of potential reasons
which are all strictly serious matters...-no smoking in the staffroom
-staffroom snacking more often from a fresh fruit selection
-chalk replaced with non-toxic hypo-allergenic marker pens
-banda machine copiers with instant-high solvents no longer in use
-teachers no longer have to teach as much following the IT revolution
-not so easy to have sex with sixth-form pupils, pupils healthier anyway
-COSHH e.g. science teachers no longer play with mercury nor wash hands in CCl4 or benzene
Many of which are unique to teaching among other stressful occupations (not all) though the sex with sixth-formers aspect is easier for non-teachers of course.
That clearly explains it all
Syncii
Please can you answer the following:
1. What is your evidence that the reports published (in the UK) on population longevity are wrong / exaggerated?
2. By how much are these reports exaggerating expected future lifetimes?
3. Given the progression of longevity in the last 100 years, which is consistent with what we might expect given medical advancements and improvements in general population health, this implies that this deceit has been taking place throughout this period - how has this been covered up for so long and only now you can reveal it to us?
4. Given the consistency with other countries, this is fraud on a massive scale - again, how are we only hearing this from you?
5. Given the importance of these assumptions, what steps have you taken to reveal your claims to the government or even to the media, who would love to get hold of a story like this....
Please can you answer the following:
1. What is your evidence that the reports published (in the UK) on population longevity are wrong / exaggerated?
2. By how much are these reports exaggerating expected future lifetimes?
3. Given the progression of longevity in the last 100 years, which is consistent with what we might expect given medical advancements and improvements in general population health, this implies that this deceit has been taking place throughout this period - how has this been covered up for so long and only now you can reveal it to us?
4. Given the consistency with other countries, this is fraud on a massive scale - again, how are we only hearing this from you?
5. Given the importance of these assumptions, what steps have you taken to reveal your claims to the government or even to the media, who would love to get hold of a story like this....
syncii said:
sidicks I am not prepared to get embroiled in an argument over what I know to be correct and you don't believe.
I look forward to seeing your answers to the questions in my post above,..syncii said:
The last "dig" was particularly uncalled for I think. I worked very hard to convince the Employer Trustees to use actual figures but the Company Trustees have the casting vote as I said. And yes I was/am fully aware of the responsibilities of a scheme trustee in that an Employee trustee can do no more than vote against a proposal.
No, under the code of conduct, a trustee has a duty to report to the regulator if they are aware of a scheme not fulfilling its legal duties or any other area affecting the funding or investment policy of a DB scheme.Why does the company want to exaggerate its deficit, causing it to have to pay increased employer contributions sooner, restricting its ability to pay dividends and penalising it in the market?
syncii said:
Anyway I have tried to put some reality into the discussion from the point of view of a pension scheme trustee here which obviously doesn't fit with your view of the World.
I'll leave you to it.
Nothing to do with 'my view of the world' and everything to do with over 2 decades of expertise and basic economics that your 'explanation' flies in the face of!I'll leave you to it.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 16:24
V8A*ndy said:
The current pensioner approach appears to be akin to that of the NRA and gun control - my cold dead hands (well, warmed up at our expense dead hands obviously, but....) -...
But alas it's not. ****Warning rant mode yet again!****
The pensioners I know are confused and filled with dread and panic over all the current reports and I am not exaggerating.
They don't get it!!!!!
Have you any idea what goes through an 80 year olds mind, especially one that lives on their own? No friends no family and virtually no support.
How about those pensioners that now earn f
k all on their meagre savings? I've already stated 10k in the bank was £60 a month to a pensioner, it's around a tenner now.
Now we should take more. Don't fking think so.
You must know a different set of 80 year old from me. many of the 80 year old I know are regularly striding round golf courses in Spain. But alas it's not. ****Warning rant mode yet again!****
The pensioners I know are confused and filled with dread and panic over all the current reports and I am not exaggerating.
They don't get it!!!!!
Have you any idea what goes through an 80 year olds mind, especially one that lives on their own? No friends no family and virtually no support.
How about those pensioners that now earn f
k all on their meagre savings? I've already stated 10k in the bank was £60 a month to a pensioner, it's around a tenner now.Now we should take more. Don't f
king think so.Edited by Mrr T on Thursday 8th October 12:11
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff