Unsustainable public sector pensions

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

The statement that pensions would account for 34% of CT was made by the head of finance- why would he wish to elicit such a response?

You'd need to ask him. As the WMPF person said it's a stupid statement to make.

Rovinghawk said:

As for 27000000% of litter fines, this 27000000% doesn't actually exist in the coffers, hence it's not going into the pension fund.

In exactly the same way that 34% of CT isn't going into the Pension Fund. It's "an equivalent of 34% of CT" so surely it's just as valid to say "270000000% of litter fines will be going into pension funds"

Rovinghawk said:

If you don't see the problem with pensions then no amount of discussion will alter this.

Out of the mouths of babes.....

[Ali G]

Compulsory free burgers, booze 'n fags to the over fifties, combined with 'die now' NHS classes run by local GP practices.

Ad campaign - 'Over 50? Lived slow? Die fast, die now - your nation expects.'

That'll learn 'em.

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

Rovinghawk said:

The statement that pensions would account for 34% of CT was made by the head of finance- why would he wish to elicit such a response?

You'd need to ask him. As the WMPF person said it's a stupid statement to make.

I don't think his intention was to elicit that response - that was the point of my question.

Countdown said:

Rovinghawk said:

As for 27000000% of litter fines, this 27000000% doesn't actually exist in the coffers, hence it's not going into the pension fund.

surely it's just as valid to say "270000000% of litter fines will be going into pension funds"

One amount of money exists in council coffers, one doesn't. I believe that the former is much more valid than the latter.

[pingu393]

Not read everything, but I've read the first four pages...

How many in the private sector pay in 15% of your gross earnings?

This would maximise your personal pension contribution and reduce the tax you have to pay. Win-Win.

How many don't do this and spend on things to maintain a higher standard of living than a public sector employee in a similar job?


I was a civil servant ,but I left in 2008, so I have seen it from both sides. I knew private sector guys on £100k with massive mortgages and lots of toys and great holidays. They are telling me that their pensions will be ste compared to mine. I wonder why.

Private sector is all about risk and public sector is all about stability. From what I've seen private sector guys take risks and reward themselves with immediate gratification. Public sector guys take the long view and are happy to work for 40 years to retire happy.


None of that is relevant to the schemes' affordability. The affordability will not return until the retirement age matches the average life expectancy.

I'll now try and read the last few pages before I jump in my little red van .

Edited by pingu393 on Friday 27th November 15:20

[jshell]

Thank phuq my final salary scheme removed the 66.67% of final salary limits!

[sidicks]

pingu393 said:

Not read everything, but I've read the first four pages...

How many in the private sector pay in 15% of your gross earnings?

How many in the public sector pay in 15% of their earnings?

Answer = very few!!!

And they have the incentive of the taxpayer paying 25-30%+ on their behalf. I'm sure private sector contributions would increase if they knew there'd be a massive taxpayer subsidy alongside!!

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th November 15:43

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

One amount of money exists in council coffers, one doesn't. I believe that the former is much more valid than the latter.

What makes you think Litter fine income doesn't exist in Council coffers?

Would it help if we substituted Council car park income instead? Or income from pest control services?

Re: what the FD of CCC said - if he genuinely said that, and it wasn't twisted out of context by the Daily Star, then it was a stupid comment to make (as the person from the WYPF pointed out).

A far more pertinent question would be "What services does the Public Sector (especially LAs) provide, and why can't people pay for these themselves?" Elderly care being a prime example....

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

What makes you think Litter fine income doesn't exist in Council coffers?

Would it help if we substituted Council car park income instead? Or income from pest control services?

Re: what the FD of CCC said - if he genuinely said that, and it wasn't twisted out of context by the Daily Star, then it was a stupid comment to make (as the person from the WYPF pointed out).

A far more pertinent question would be "What services does the Public Sector (especially LAs) provide, and why can't people pay for these themselves?" Elderly care being a prime example....

If less money was spent on subsidising pensions, more could be spent on elderly care...

HTH

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th November 16:01

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

If Jess money was spent on subsidising pensions, more could be spent on elderly care...

HTH

If less money was spent FULL STOP everybody could pay less tax.

If people sourced their OWN care services (both for the children and the elderly) they could avoid paying the platinum plated public sector pensions. Far far too many people in our society are prepared to dump their family obligations on the State.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

If less money was spent FULL STOP everybody could pay less tax.

But most people recognise the need to pay tax to fund public services. Most people fail to see the need to pay tax to fund excessive public sector pensions!

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

<snip>

And they have the incentive of the taxpayer paying 25-30%+ on their behalf. I'm sure private sector contributions would increase if they knew there'd be a massive taxpayer subsidy alongside!!

still don;t get it do you

but then again the 'i pay your wages ' attitude is what has become expected of the Powerfully Built pHer

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

still don;t get it do you.

It's quite obvious that 'you don't get it', as far pensions are concerned.

moh1877 said:

but then again the 'i pay your wages ' attitude is what has become expected of the Powerfully Built pHer

I've made no such comment - but you appear to be entirely ignorant as to where the money comes from to pay for the public sector.

But then as you've proved you don't really understand how pensions work, your only option is try and misrepresent and move the goalposts!

[pingu393]

sidicks said:

pingu393 said:

Not read everything, but I've read the first four pages...

How many in the private sector pay in 15% of your gross earnings?

How many in the public sector pay in 15% of their earnings?

Answer = very few!!!

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th November 15:43

Not allowed to. My public sector pension plan was rated at 13%, so the most that I was allowed to pay into a separate scheme was 2%.

The point I am making is that I was effectively paid 13% more than I was, but I never got the chance to spend (squander) the money.

Obviously, the money never existed and all Governments hope that we die before we collect. We are living too long .

40 years of work and 40 years of pension is unsustainable.

sidicks said:

And they have the incentive of the taxpayer paying 25-30%+ on their behalf. I'm sure private sector contributions would increase if they knew there'd be a massive taxpayer subsidy alongside!!

Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th November 15:43

Effectively, there is.

If you earn £100k and pay 15% into a pension, pension is paid into scheme as gross, so 40% tax is saved.

Assuming that the final annual pension is less than 40% limit, you will pay less than 22% on the payments. Also the £11k tax-free allowance is a bigger proportion, so the final annual tax percentage will be significantly less than 20%.

Edited by pingu393 on Friday 27th November 21:20

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

What makes you think Litter fine income doesn't exist in Council coffers?

100% of it does. 2700000% of it doesn't.

[egor110]

Countdown said:

What makes you think Litter fine income doesn't exist in Council coffers?

Would it help if we substituted Council car park income instead? Or income from pest control services?

Re: what the FD of CCC said - if he genuinely said that, and it wasn't twisted out of context by the Daily Star, then it was a stupid comment to make (as the person from the WYPF pointed out).

A far more pertinent question would be "What services does the Public Sector (especially LAs) provide, and why can't people pay for these themselves?" Elderly care being a prime example....

What plans do you have in place to fund your care when your elderly?

Very interested to see if you have any idea what it costs to put someone in a residential home or nursing home.

[JagLover]

otolith said:

Here is the primary source;

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2015/03/lgp...

Rather amusing that some are focusing on a narrative shorthand of expressing the contributions as a percentage of something and ignoring the fact that this scheme is seeing rapidly rising deficits in a few short years.

The Local Government scheme closest to me now has employer contributions of 23% of salaries and the deficit is still rising. What percentage rate does it need to reach for some of the usual suspects to admit that this scheme needs to be reformed, either by a later retirement age or a lower rate paid as a percentage of salary?

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

Countdown said:

What makes you think Litter fine income doesn't exist in Council coffers?

100% of it does. 2700000% of it doesn't.

In exactly the same way that 34% of Council Tax AREN'T used to pay for pensions.... You can't have it both ways.

[Countdown]

egor110 said:

What plans do you have in place to fund your care when your elderly?

Very interested to see if you have any idea what it costs to put someone in a residential home or nursing home.

I'll be living with one of my kids. If they decide to kick me out I'll sell the house and use the money plus my pension to fund my own care costs. I won't be gaming the system by giving my kids all my assets and then expecting the State took up the tab. This may be an old fashioned view but I think children/family should be the first people in line to look after their parents.

P.s. Nursing homes / resi care aren't the only options for caring for aged parents. In my view they should be a last resort. Just think how much less tax we'd all need to pay......

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

In exactly the same way that 34% of Council Tax AREN'T used to pay for pensions.... You can't have it both ways.

You seem to believe that the fact the money isn't explicitly ring-fenced for pensions makes a difference - it doesn't!!

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

If less money was spent FULL STOP everybody could pay less tax.

But most people recognise the need to pay tax to fund public services. Most people fail to see the need to pay tax to fund excessive public sector pensions!

Sidicks, the theme is similar to the last thread, but it seems the key is that you do not associate paying for the service with the need to fund pensions. They are totally linked.

If it was all privatised, you'd need to pay enough salary to allow those employees to create a pension - and the employer has pension liabilities in any case.

It is notable that in the last MoD budget, the headline 2% of GDP being spent figure INCLUDES the cost of pensions. Normally, this should keep someone like yourself happy as the department IS reflecting the actual cost of pensions in their budget. Trying to live within their means you could suggest. That is what you want isn't it? The overall affordability to be factored in to the budgets long term? Others say the budget should exclude pensions and spend it on kit - but this just shifts the question of who pays for the pensions? It has to be linked to the provision of the service, so the cost of that service is fully understood.

Whether the MoD pays a civil servant £40k to be a chartered engineer in an airworthiness post (with pension liability), or contracts that out to industry for a certain cost who in term actually pays the individual £75k a year (i.e. MoD washing its hands of pension liability, this is down to employer), the overall cost is included in the budget. And please don't try and say again there is no delta in earnings - if anything I'm underplaying reality!