Cut old people's benefits, they'll die soon anyway
Discussion
I know that the tone of sidick's posts can sometimes get people's backs up a bit, but I have to say, the content on pensions-related matters is usually spot on.
That certainly seems to me to be the case here and there are some otherwise very intelligent posters making some articulate, but ultimately very flawed arguments.
That certainly seems to me to be the case here and there are some otherwise very intelligent posters making some articulate, but ultimately very flawed arguments.
Mrr T said:
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 f
king think so.I have a lot of experience of dealing with the elderly and I applaud those who can still play Golf and enjoy it.
Wish I could still play Golf and i'm not even 50 yet.
lauda said:
I know that the tone of sidick's posts can sometimes get people's backs up a bit, but I have to say, the content on pensions-related matters is usually spot on.
Indeed 
But to be fair I tend to respond in the tone of the original poster. Polite questions get polite answers. Aggressive claims get aggressive responses!
syncii said:
My absolute last word on this.......
The answer is they don't. Companies are not required to suddenly start paying higher contributions until the Actuarial Valuation report is agreed. The Company had 6 months from the issuing of the report to agreeing how the DB scheme would continue to be funded.
The Company I worked for scared (no really, that's what Companies do these days) it's members into agreeing a new deal based on how it could not afford to continue to pay the inflated* DB scheme deficit. This allowed the Company to agree a new deal and while they were at it, they reduced their own contributions.
The members don't get a say - that's what the trustees are for...The answer is they don't. Companies are not required to suddenly start paying higher contributions until the Actuarial Valuation report is agreed. The Company had 6 months from the issuing of the report to agreeing how the DB scheme would continue to be funded.
The Company I worked for scared (no really, that's what Companies do these days) it's members into agreeing a new deal based on how it could not afford to continue to pay the inflated* DB scheme deficit. This allowed the Company to agree a new deal and while they were at it, they reduced their own contributions.
A pretty poor set of trustee who would accept reduced employer contributions (and increased member contributions) while a scheme is in deficit!
syncii said:
And yes the employees were fully aware that the Company was using the PF scheme report to reduce their contributions but were sufficiently scared at the threat of closure to agree a new deal.
The trustees had the opportunity to report this to the regulator and report the scheme actuary to the profession for misleading valuation...syncii said:
As a PF Trustee I spoke to Employee Trustees of other Companies and they all recounted very similar tactics in the rush to close DB schemes.
As explained, closing schemes leaves the obligation with the employer with no future member contributions.syncii said:
To be honest I was hoping that some might find this view helpful, but clearly not.
The actuarial profession agrees on how life expectancy figures are calculated. You claim not to believe them, but offer nothing to explain why you disagree, why their Caucasians are flawed or what the answers should be.- inflated by artificial wage rises as we can't agree on the science of life expectancy figures.
Forgive me, but I'll go with the profession who are regarded as experts in this field for almost 200 years...
syncii said:
But using 5.5% per annum wage increase instead of 1% obviously has a massive effect on any scheme deficit over 20-30 years.
As above, it affects both the income (contributions) and the outgo (benefits), so provides offsetting effects, and needs to be reviewed in the context of all the other assumptions.If the other assumptions were not consistent then a good trustee would have challenged the scheme actuary and if necessary reported them...
syncii said:
Definitely out of here now and no back answers........
Shame.Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 16:56
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 17:16
syncii said:
To be honest I was hoping that some might find this view helpful, but clearly not.
There's nothing quite so dangerous as a keen amateur. Some of us have long experience working in occupational pensions in a professional capacity, and I'm beginning to understand, particularly with the new pensions freedoms, how medical doctors must feel on a daily basis with a constant stream of "home experts" telling them their jobs. - inflated by artificial wage rises as we can't agree on the science of life expectancy figures.
I wonder how many of the self-promoted new pensions experts properly understand how a critical yield works and how it actually affects funding. When you factor that with the apparent wilful misunderstand of mortality and it's a recipe for absolute disaster. Of course, once people's funds fail and they run out of money, it will naturally be the fault of the nasty pensions industry...
Andy Zarse said:
syncii said:
To be honest I was hoping that some might find this view helpful, but clearly not.
There's nothing quite so dangerous as a keen amateur. Some of us have long experience working in occupational pensions in a professional capacity, and I'm beginning to understand, particularly with the new pensions freedoms, how medical doctors must feel on a daily basis with a constant stream of "home experts" telling them their jobs. - inflated by artificial wage rises as we can't agree on the science of life expectancy figures.
I wonder how many of the self-promoted new pensions experts properly understand how a critical yield works and how it actually affects funding. When you factor that with the apparent wilful misunderstand of mortality and it's a recipe for absolute disaster. Of course, once people's funds fail and they run out of money, it will naturally be the fault of the nasty pensions industry...
sidicks said:
Note that the Police's own pension document available on their website refers to the 1987 scheme costing over 33% of salary per annum...
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
I don't want to come over all edgy and modern but it is sometimes true that taking the bare presentation off an internet site and believing it is not always the route to an informed opinion.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
You present some arguments. Well done. However, the point in dispute, and the one I'm arguing, is that I have paid enough into my pension to justify the amount I'm taking out.
I won't go through all the points again as, no doubt, you will dismiss the valid points as 'maybe you can argue'. I did, you may have noticed.
You strongly dispute things. Well, that's convincing. I did not suggest, at any time, a life expectancy of current retirees, or of me.
I like your 'enhanced ill-health retirement'. That would have given me a laugh had I not been refused an ill-health pension because, at some time in my life after retirement there was a possibility I would be able to work in any job again. And this for an injury received on duty, exacerbated by failures in management to comply with express guidelines on H&S. Enhanced ill-health pension. That's a good one.
You quote your 12% off the internet, yet an officer has pointed out that the actual contribution was considerably more. You seem to ignore inconvenient information.
You say interest has been ignored, indeed, the interest that would have built up when contributions far exceeded what was paid out has also been ignored. Far in excess. That the government decided to piss it up against the wall cannot be taken as a way of negating the value of this.
I would agree that the way of dealing with the pension arrangements was poor. Indeed, it would not be allowed now. However, the reason for it was that it tied officers in post. At a time when over half of officers left the job within 8 years, in fact a little over 7, it meant that all they got back was their payments, without interest. A charge, in fact, for leaving.
There are other downsides to the pension. Many officers were forced to leave the job before their 30 years, through ill-health in the main. They lost a considerable percentage of their pension by doing so but, of course, if they were ill for a certain period, even if from an injury on duty, their pay was reduced considerably and after a similar period, was down to zero. I'm not sure you can find that on a website, but it is true. And all they got returned was their contributions.
I stick by the figures I posted.
Derek Smith said:
I don't want to come over all edgy and modern but it is sometimes true that taking the bare presentation off an internet site and believing it is not always the route to an informed opinion.
If you are suggesting that the website set up by the pension scheme in which you are invested has incorrect information then I suggest you inform the relevant people!Derek Smith said:
You present some arguments. Well done. However, the point in dispute, and the one I'm arguing, is that I have paid enough into my pension to justify the amount I'm taking out.
I won't go through all the points again as, no doubt, you will dismiss the valid points as 'maybe you can argue'. I did, you may have noticed.
You strongly dispute things. Well, that's convincing. I did not suggest, at any time, a life expectancy of current retirees, or of me.
Quite how you think that can state that you've definitely paid in more than you will take out without discussing your expected lifetime in retirement is beyond me (and I suspect beyond anyone that understand the valuation of benefits received from a pension scheme!).I won't go through all the points again as, no doubt, you will dismiss the valid points as 'maybe you can argue'. I did, you may have noticed.
You strongly dispute things. Well, that's convincing. I did not suggest, at any time, a life expectancy of current retirees, or of me.
However, what you did claim is the following:
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 think we have seen that the average mortality of police officers (based on actual experience) is significantly better than the population as a whole and on par with the typical pension population. That means that, at age 55, your claim is out by a factor of 8-10 (which makes a massive difference in terms of the value of benefits received.Derek Smith said:
I like your 'enhanced ill-health retirement'. That would have given me a laugh had I not been refused an ill-health pension because, at some time in my life after retirement there was a possibility I would be able to work in any job again. And this for an injury received on duty, exacerbated by failures in management to comply with express guidelines on H&S. Enhanced ill-health pension. That's a good one.
Like it or not, ill-health retirement exists in your scheme regardless of whether you could or should have had it. That has an increased cost.Derek Smith said:
You quote your 12% off the internet, yet an officer has pointed out that the actual contribution was considerably more. You seem to ignore inconvenient information.
No, you quoted 12%...Derek Smith said:
The police paid 12% in real terms
That was the contribution rate, as you readily admit! You seem to be claiming that there was some other adjustment to pay that results in effective additional contribution of 5%. Fair enough, but based on the numbers that still doesn't seem to support your claim!Derek Smith said:
You say interest has been ignored, indeed, the interest that would have built up when contributions far exceeded what was paid out has also been ignored. Far in excess. That the government decided to piss it up against the wall cannot be taken as a way of negating the value of this.
You're just making this up now, and miss the point. Yes my calculations ignore interest, but they also ignore the fact that your pension is based on final salary and the contributions were based on actual (i.e. much lower) salary - that makes a massive difference and offsets part (but not all) of the interest you referred to above. These two assumptions are keyDerek Smith said:
I would agree that the way of dealing with the pension arrangements was poor. Indeed, it would not be allowed now. However, the reason for it was that it tied officers in post. At a time when over half of officers left the job within 8 years, in fact a little over 7, it meant that all they got back was their payments, without interest. A charge, in fact, for leaving.
I stick by the figures I posted.
So revising my figures to take into account the additional information:I stick by the figures I posted.
Just doing some rough calculations:
1. Paying 17% 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, allowing for 5% interest on contributions and 3% salary growth, the retirement lifetime to equate the contributions and pension payments would be just 12 years
4. Adjusting for the value of the other benefits would reduce this below 11 years
As we have seen from the Police's own data, longevity at age 55 is now around 32.8 years, suggesting that value of benefits to be received is expected to be more than twice the value of contributions paid, even after interest has been taken into account
I think the trouble is you are basing your claims on what you think you deserve (which I am not disputing), with the true underlying economics of the situation.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 21:00
Welshbeef said:
Also what is the actual cost currently of
2. free bus service
Not what most people think.2. free bus service
The scheme is run on the basis of the bus operator being no better and no worse off whether the scheme existed or not.
In essence the bus operator only gets paid for bus pass holders if they would have got on the bus and paid even if they didn't have a bus pass. If they are only catching the bus because they have a free bus pass, the bus operator gets nothing.
Obviously lots of complicated calculations, but if you are bored - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession.
To question the competence of the profession you'd need to provide some evidence to support that criticism...We're all ears...
Andy Zarse said:
Precisely. For example he'll have no problem explaining the relevance of critical yield, within the context of asymmetrical market movements across a spectrum of asset classes, to achieving a targeted return within preset risk parameters (and if anyone thinks this sounds poncy, well I'm sorry but it isn't, it's core).
We're all ears...
To be honest, I'm most interested in the claim that independent experts and governments across the world have been lying about population longevity for multiple decades...We're all ears...
It's a fairly big claim with, as far as I can tell, nothing to support it..!!
sidicks said:
Andy Zarse said:
Precisely. For example he'll have no problem explaining the relevance of critical yield, within the context of asymmetrical market movements across a spectrum of asset classes, to achieving a targeted return within preset risk parameters (and if anyone thinks this sounds poncy, well I'm sorry but it isn't, it's core).
We're all ears...
To be honest, I'm most interested in the claim that independent experts and governments across the world have been lying about population longevity for multiple decades...We're all ears...
Either way, get ready to reset those calculations chaps
A recent book The Ageless Generation claims that we can reset longevity expectations
'last week, experts at the World Health Organisation predicted a world in which living to 100 should be the norm'
Cited book author said:
These estimates are probably a bit conservative, since it is very likely that people already in their 30s and 40s will be able to work way past 100.
If this longevity extension materialises, the pensions scene will be 'interesting' 
To those in the industry, are there any current plans around such a major change in life expectancy? Is the author talking out of his pension plan?
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession.
To question the competence of the profession you'd need to provide some evidence to support that criticism...Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
V8 Fettler said:
You're inviting me to criticise the competence of the financial sector? That's a big target!
Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
Which regulated professional bodies were involved in the above?Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 8th October 10:12
sidicks said:
Andy Zarse said:
Precisely. For example he'll have no problem explaining the relevance of critical yield, within the context of asymmetrical market movements across a spectrum of asset classes, to achieving a targeted return within preset risk parameters (and if anyone thinks this sounds poncy, well I'm sorry but it isn't, it's core).
We're all ears...
To be honest, I'm most interested in the claim that independent experts and governments across the world have been lying about population longevity for multiple decades...We're all ears...
It's a fairly big claim with, as far as I can tell, nothing to support it..!!
Recently the teaching unions tried this tactic, stating (similar to Derek) that teachers retiring at age 65 had a life expectancy of less than three years. They never managed to provide a link despite being pressed. So I wonder, for example, how big is the cohort? In fact, I've never heard of a teacher deferring retirement to 65!
Anyway, people might be interested in the extraordinarily detailed work on mortality undertaken by the IFoA, and here's a link to work from.
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/research-and-resources...
I would welcome considered comment and criticism from the "dead by 68" brigade.
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're inviting me to criticise the competence of the financial sector? That's a big target!
Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
Which regulated professional bodieswere involved in the above?Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
V8 Fettler said:
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're inviting me to criticise the competence of the financial sector? That's a big target!
Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
Which regulated professional bodieswere involved in the above?Failure to addequately manage liquidity leading to the liquidity crisis in 2008
Failure to provide good advice re: endowment policies in the 1980s and early 1990s
Failure to undertake effective due diligence during acquisition e.g. RBS and ABN Amro
turbobloke said:
Has there been an accusation of lying - if so, missed that.
syncii said:
Govts have a vested interest inflating life expectancy figure
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.
Andy Zarse said:
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
There's nothing quite as dangerous as a professional working in the financial sector who has the utmost belief in the competence of his profession.
To question the competence of the profession you'd need to provide some evidence to support that criticism...We're all ears...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff