Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
La Liga said:
didn't ask you who shouldn't do it, I asked you who else you expect to.
It's alright making simplistic conflict of interest links (it's easier to attack the judge than the judgement) and trotting out the 'insular empires' line ad nauseum, but that doesn't address the fact that the laws we have dictate our legal structure and processes.
The point is (on my initial reading) that the judgement suggests that some judges should be worse off (no transitional arrangements for those close to retirement) rather than that the rest of the judges should be better off (I.e scheme unchanged), so I'm not sure the 'conflict of interest' claim is relevant!It's alright making simplistic conflict of interest links (it's easier to attack the judge than the judgement) and trotting out the 'insular empires' line ad nauseum, but that doesn't address the fact that the laws we have dictate our legal structure and processes.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
According to the judgement, the case was judged by Judge SJ Williams, who is a judge.
Who else did you expect to make a legal judgement?It's alright making simplistic conflict of interest links (it's easier to attack the judge than the judgement) and trotting out the 'insular empires' line ad nauseum, but that doesn't address the fact that the laws we have dictate our legal structure and processes.
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
V8 Fettler said:
You don't always get what you ask for, unless you're a judge asking to retain unaffordable pension arrangements.
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
I think you've misunderstood what the judgement actually says (and the wider implications)!!I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
V8 Fettler said:
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
No, what you're asking for, whether you realise it or not, are fundamental changes to our legal system. Ironically, a rather expensive suggestion along with rather wider implications beyond the narrow, simplistic view you're taking here. In what world would it be rational to make fundamental, expensive changes for an atypical scenario?
One interesting way of nudging this in the right direction might be to change the rules around transparency of public sector pay.
Right now, all Whitehall departments have to publish the salaries of everyone in the Senior Civil Service (Deputy Director level and above).
Instead of publishing salary, one should instead publish the total value of that person's remuneration package, consisting of:
- Salary (and bonus), as now
- Actuarial fair value of the increase in pension entitlements accrued that year, minus any employee contributions. In a DC scheme this would simply be employer contributions.
- Any other taxable benefits
This would be consistent with the disclosure requirements on directors of public companies.
By doing this, it might help to increase awareness of the true value (and cost to the employer - the taxpayer) of the non-salary elements of public sector remuneration.
Right now, all Whitehall departments have to publish the salaries of everyone in the Senior Civil Service (Deputy Director level and above).
Instead of publishing salary, one should instead publish the total value of that person's remuneration package, consisting of:
- Salary (and bonus), as now
- Actuarial fair value of the increase in pension entitlements accrued that year, minus any employee contributions. In a DC scheme this would simply be employer contributions.
- Any other taxable benefits
This would be consistent with the disclosure requirements on directors of public companies.
By doing this, it might help to increase awareness of the true value (and cost to the employer - the taxpayer) of the non-salary elements of public sector remuneration.
The other way, which is what has actually been happening, is to:
- Move from final salary schemes to career-average schemes. These are not inherently less valuable (though often they are given the terms of the new schemes), but they are much easier to value (I.e., predict the future liability)
- Increase employer contributions to the schemes, such that they fully reflect the cost of the pension. Employer contributions are now ~22% (with another ~8% from the employee) for some schemes, where the fair value is probably ~35% - it wouldn't take much to close that final 5% implicit taxpayer subsidy
- With such arrangements, employers adjust salaries and employment levels to make sure they stay within budget
- Move from final salary schemes to career-average schemes. These are not inherently less valuable (though often they are given the terms of the new schemes), but they are much easier to value (I.e., predict the future liability)
- Increase employer contributions to the schemes, such that they fully reflect the cost of the pension. Employer contributions are now ~22% (with another ~8% from the employee) for some schemes, where the fair value is probably ~35% - it wouldn't take much to close that final 5% implicit taxpayer subsidy
- With such arrangements, employers adjust salaries and employment levels to make sure they stay within budget
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
No, what you're asking for, whether you realise it or not, are fundamental changes to our legal system. Ironically, a rather expensive suggestion along with rather wider implications beyond the narrow, simplistic view you're taking here. In what world would it be rational to make fundamental, expensive changes for an atypical scenario?
You've mentioned "expensive", do you therefore have some costings for an alternative?
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
You don't always get what you ask for, unless you're a judge asking to retain unaffordable pension arrangements.
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
I think you've misunderstood what the judgement actually says (and the wider implications)!!I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
V8 Fettler said:
Do you not think that there is the possibility of a conflict of interest where a judge can pass a judgement that creates substantial financial benefit for other judges?
Possibly, but in the actual case under discussion, the result is financial loss for some judges (and a large number of other public sector workers) if the ruling is applied more widely.V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
No, what you're asking for, whether you realise it or not, are fundamental changes to our legal system. Ironically, a rather expensive suggestion along with rather wider implications beyond the narrow, simplistic view you're taking here. In what world would it be rational to make fundamental, expensive changes for an atypical scenario?
A vague, simplistic, "I expect it to get magically sorted whilst I fail to appreciate the complexities and realities", doesn't cut it in the real world.
V8 Fettler said:
You've mentioned "expensive", do you therefore have some costings for an alternative?
The alternative to having to fundamentally change the legal system? Yes, I've calculated it. It costs nothing to keep it the same.
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
It's not higher. They could probably earn more in the private sector. Apparently there are more opportunities there
sidicks said:
1. The ONS survey suggests it is
sidicks said:
2. Not doing the same job, because that is exactly what the ONS survey is measuring!
If you could make your mind up that would be helpful. is it the same job or is it NOT the same job?? If it's the same job then why are BUPA nurses paid more than NHS? Why are private sector teachers paid more than State sector?sidicks said:
Countdown said:
So focusing on ONE particular thing (like pensions) without taking into account the myriad of other things which impact on a person's employment choices is pointless.
That's why we aren't focusing on pensions in isolation, we are focusing on pensions and salary which is the normal way of comparing jobs!sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Some would take it, others wouldn't. Not because they don't appreciate the value of the scheme but simply because they need/want the cash now rather than in 30/40 years time.
Giving people what is valuable for them (and cheaper) for the taxpayer is a good way of helping staff retention / acquisition and reducing the burden on the public finances!
As I've said earlier - if the package was that amazing then the best and brightest would be flocking to the Public Sector.
Countdown said:
If it's the same job then why are BUPA nurses paid more than NHS? Why are private sector teachers paid more than State sector?
Maybe because they're better at what they do?Countdown said:
Just because it's cheaper for the taxpayer doesn't mean that the staff will accept it. If the pension scheme (or any part of their package) is made worse then why would it improve retention rates?
Read what he said about a raised salary and its greater perceived value to the staff.Countdown said:
As I've said earlier - if the package was that amazing then the best and brightest would be flocking to the Public Sector.
I wouldn't do public sector because I couldn't handle the stupid bureaucracy & prevailing attitude that I've seen. YMMV.Countdown said:
That's why we aren't focusing on pensions in isolation, we are focusing on pensions and salary which is the normal way of comparing jobs!
Pensions and salary AREN'T the only factors that affect job choice. There are a myriad of others such as job satisfaction, flexibility, annual leave, ability to WFH. So looking at "salary and pensions" on their own are pointless. It would be a bit like comparing two jobs solely by looking at what company cars were on offer and disregarding everything else.Countdown said:
If the pension scheme (or any part of their package) is made worse then why would it improve retention rates
Because plenty of people value a 20% increase in salary over a DB pension.Countdown said:
As I've said earlier - if the package was that amazing then the best and brightest would be flocking to the Public Sector.
No they wouldn't, for the reasons explained earlier.Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 18th January 17:05
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
I expect the legal system (which I pay for) to work in such a way as to ensure that there cannot possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interest, is that too much to ask for? How that is achieved in detail is the responsibility of those who are paid by the taxpayer to manage the legal system.
No, what you're asking for, whether you realise it or not, are fundamental changes to our legal system. Ironically, a rather expensive suggestion along with rather wider implications beyond the narrow, simplistic view you're taking here. In what world would it be rational to make fundamental, expensive changes for an atypical scenario?
A vague, simplistic, "I expect it to get magically sorted whilst I fail to appreciate the complexities and realities", doesn't cut it in the real world.
V8 Fettler said:
You've mentioned "expensive", do you therefore have some costings for an alternative?
The alternative to having to fundamentally change the legal system? Yes, I've calculated it. It costs nothing to keep it the same.
Nothing magical about paying substantial amounts of tax each year to fund the legal system and expecting the legal system to operate without conflicts of interest. This issue should never have reached a Tribunal, the gubmint failed dismally to manage the process effectively and efficiently.
You have no costings for the "expensive" alternative, so how can you therefore state that an alternative is expensive?
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
Do you not think that there is the possibility of a conflict of interest where a judge can pass a judgement that creates substantial financial benefit for other judges?
Possibly, but in the actual case under discussion, the result is financial loss for some judges (and a large number of other public sector workers) if the ruling is applied more widely.I'm sure there will be an adverse effect on some pensions as a result of this ruling, the lesson learnt is not to offer full or tapered protection in similar circumstances. Close the pension scheme to all, but retain accrued benefits, as frequently occurs in the private sector. As someone once said; "We're all in this together".
Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
If it's the same job then why are BUPA nurses paid more than NHS? Why are private sector teachers paid more than State sector?
Maybe because they're better at what they do?Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
Just because it's cheaper for the taxpayer doesn't mean that the staff will accept it. If the pension scheme (or any part of their package) is made worse then why would it improve retention rates?
Read what he said about a raised salary and its greater perceived value to the staff.Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
As I've said earlier - if the package was that amazing then the best and brightest would be flocking to the Public Sector.
I wouldn't do public sector because I couldn't handle the stupid bureaucracy & prevailing attitude that I've seen. YMMV.Countdown said:
So you agree that remuneration is better in the Private Sector?
The ONS survey indicates that it's higher in some areas and lower in others. On average it's very slightly higher in the private sector but it's marginal and certainly dispels the myth that a heavily subsidised pension is compensation for lower salary.Countdown said:
Read what he said about a raised salary and its greater perceived value to the staff.
The way he perceives it patently isn't the way the staff or the Unions seem to perceive it.Countdown]Good for you. I choose not to do it because finance jobs in the Private Sector are far better paid. That's why I don't begrudge those that work in the Public Sector their pensions. They're generally dealing with the less pleasant aspects of our society [b said:
for less pay.[/b{
Except the ONS survey says pretty much the opposite - maybe you should read it?!CoolHands said:
I still don't accept they're unaffordable 
it's part of the cost of running those jobs.
The public sector killed them ages ago because they are unaffordable. it's part of the cost of running those jobs.The country is running a deficit of around 40bn and has nigh on 2tn to pay off. We can't afford them.
The surveys noted above suggest they are not a necessary cost. Certainly not now. If the public sector wishes to follow the private sector on wages, it needs to also follow their lead on pensions (and the rest of the package details).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff