Unsustainable public sector pensions

[egor110]

Countdown said:

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......

Yes in a ideal world however the reality of trying to care for a relative at home when what they actually need is proper nursing or more likely dementia care is very different.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

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.

Wrong - i can fully accept there is a need to fund pensions for these staff. Indeed, in the numerous examples I've provided as to how these pensions should/could be changed, the employees have always retained an attractive pension, still much more generous than the vast majority of private sector schemes. However, for obvious reasons of sustainability, affordability and fairness those pensions need to be at a sensible level not the gold-played schemes of today.

///adj said:

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.

See above - there's quite a difference between 'a pension' and a 'gold-plated DB' pension.

So the saving is material.

///adj said:

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.

It is notable that the amount quoted includes the 'notional' employer contribution, not the full cost of the pensions.

///adj said:

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!

Again, you fail to understand the true (hidden) cost of the pensions.

[crankedup]

For all the discussions regarding these pensions it seems the Government is not overly concerned and allows the various schemes to continue. If Government is not unduly concerned that must indicate the issue is relatively minor?

[egor110]

crankedup said:

For all the discussions regarding these pensions it seems the Government is not overly concerned and allows the various schemes to continue. If Government is not unduly concerned that must indicate the issue is relatively minor?

They won't give a fk what the electorate think until nearer election time.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

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.

Wrong - i can fully accept there is a need to fund pensions for these staff. Indeed, in the numerous examples I've provided as to how these pensions should/could be changed, the employees have always retained an attractive pension, still much more generous than the vast majority of private sector schemes. However, for obvious reasons of sustainability, affordability and fairness those pensions need to be at a sensible level not the gold-played schemes of today.

///adj said:

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.

See above - there's quite a difference between 'a pension' and a 'gold-plated DB' pension.

So the saving is material.

///adj said:

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.

It is notable that the amount quoted includes the 'notional' employer contribution, not the full cost of the pensions.

///adj said:

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!

Again, you fail to understand the true (hidden) cost of the pensions.

The full costs of the pensions can be found easily on the internet. There is no secret here, they are not hidden - it is just an on going yearly cost, also with a forecast of the future liabilities. Yes it is "unfunded" in the classic sense, but it when you look at the yearly cost, income from contributions and future spend, it clearly is an understood and managed budgetary issue.

Cutting it all back to basics, the headline figures of "shock horror billions of future liabilities" have to be put into the context of what it will cost per year vs GDP.

In these terms, the treasury forecasts for the ALL public pension liabilities run around 1.5% of GDP a year currently. As the population ages, this will climb to around 2% by 2030, then fall again as already implemented changes in the pension system and changes in the public sector take effect. More tellingly, the difference between the cost of public pensions in a given year and the contributions from public sector employees is 0.3% of GDP.

In other words in actual affordability terms this is a total non-issue just stirred up by the Heily Fail & its adherents. And you know it!

If you want to get angry - ask why your private employer or their pension fund agent is no longer able to offer you such a pension - which of course they are, if they wanted to!

[r11co]

///ajd said:

In these terms, the treasury forecasts for the ALL public pension liabilities run around 1.5% of GDP a year currently. As the population ages, this will climb to around 2% by 2030, then fall again as already implemented changes in the pension system and changes in the public sector take effect. More tellingly, the difference between the cost of public pensions in a given year and the contributions from public sector employees is 0.3% of GDP.

In other words in actual affordability terms this is a total non-issue just stirred up by the Heily Fail & its adherents. And you know it!

If you want to get angry - ask why your private employer or their pension fund agent is no longer able to offer you such a pension - which of course they are, if they wanted to!

[sidicks]But....but, it is just WRONG![/sidicks]

Oh, sorry, forgot this..

[sidicks][/sidicks]

[sidicks]

//adj said:

The full costs of the pensions can be found easily on the internet. There is no secret here, they are not hidden - it is just an on going yearly cost, also with a forecast of the future liabilities.

Once again (despite having it explained to you on numerous occasions you are confusing the ultimate cost of the schemes to the taxpayer with the 'notional' employee's contribution rate.

You are wrong and will continue to be so!

///adj said:

Yes it is "unfunded" in the classic sense, but it when you look at the yearly cost, income from contributions and future spend, it clearly is an understood and managed budgetary issue.

Once again, funded or unfunded is not the issue.

///adj said:

Cutting it all back to basics, the headline figures of "shock horror billions of future liabilities" have to be put into the context of what it will cost per year vs GDP.

'Cutting it back to basics' there is no justification for the massiv taxpayer subsidy and those who focus on cost as a % of GDP clearly do not understand the issue.

///adj said:

In these terms, the treasury forecasts for the ALL public pension liabilities run around 1.5% of GDP a year currently. As the population ages, this will climb to around 2% by 2030, then fall again as already implemented changes in the pension system and changes in the public sector take effect. More tellingly, the difference between the cost of public pensions in a given year and the contributions from public sector employees is 0.3% of GDP.

Once again you fail to comprehend the increased cost of accrued benefits.

//adj said:

In other words in actual affordability terms this is a total non-issue just stirred up by the Heily Fail & its adherents. And you know it!

GDP doesn't provide funds to pay pensions. Perhaps you need to better understand what GDP is!

[quote=///adj{
If you want to get angry - ask why your private employer or their pension fund agent is no longer able to offer you such a pension - which of course they are, if they wanted to!

I already know the answer - under current economics and demographics they require massive subsidy from someone else!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 28th November 17:30

[r11co]

sidicks said:

You are wrong and will continue to be so!

Told you he would say that!

[///ajd]

Sidicks

I am most definitely NOT confusing contributions and actual cost.

I fully understand there is a gap between the contributions and the actual cost.

And I have explained what that gap is.

Considering it as a % of GDP is entirely valid as it is used to set budgets for various public sector activities.

Or are you saying having a target of spend on defence at 2% of GDP is total nonsense and NATO and its allies are idiots when they discuss spend in these terms?

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

Sidicks

I am most definitely NOT confusing contributions and actual cost.

I fully understand there is a gap between the contributions and the actual cost.

And I have explained what that gap is.

in that case, what is the cost of a typical public sector DB schemes???

///adj said:

Considering it as a % of GDP is entirely valid as it is used to set budgets for various public sector activities.

Or are you saying having a target of spend on defence at 2% of GDP is total nonsense and NATO and its allies are idiots when they discuss spend in these terms?

Does 'GDP' provide cash to pay pensions?

What % of GDP is available to fund public spending in total?

[sidicks]

r11co said:

Told you he would say that!

Last time you got involved in a discussion on this topic you were made to look a fool - why put yourself through that again?

[r11co]

sidicks said:

Does 'GDP' provide cash to pay pensions?

What % of GDP is available to fund public spending in total?

Which is the crux of the issue. sidicks does not believe tax should pay for public sector pensions because sidicks does not want to acknowledge that it is a part of paying for public services.

[sidicks]

r11co said:

Which is the crux of the issue. sidicks does not believe tax should pay for public sector pensions because sidicks does not want to acknowledge that it is a part of paying for public services.

r11co doesn't understand pensions so he has to misrepresent the views of those that do.

[r11co]

sidicks said:

Last time you got involved in a discussion on this topic you were made to look a fool - why put yourself through that again?

So says you.

This thread must be like Groundhog Day for you. Only mistake I made was to try and engage you on the topic last time.

You are a boring prig with a massive chip on your shoulder about this one issue. Get a life.

Edited by r11co on Saturday 28th November 17:37

[sidicks]

r11co said:

So says you.

This thread must be like Groundhog Day for you. Only mistake I made was to try and engage you on the topic last time.

Groundhog Day because the same ill-informed idiots spout the same ignorant nonsense!


Remind us all about your extensive experience and expertise in this area...!

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

Sidicks

I am most definitely NOT confusing contributions and actual cost.

I fully understand there is a gap between the contributions and the actual cost.

And I have explained what that gap is.

in that case, what is the cost of a typical public sector DB schemes???

///adj said:

Considering it as a % of GDP is entirely valid as it is used to set budgets for various public sector activities.

Or are you saying having a target of spend on defence at 2% of GDP is total nonsense and NATO and its allies are idiots when they discuss spend in these terms?

Does 'GDP' provide cash to pay pensions?

What % of GDP is available to fund public spending in total?

Keep digging that hole..

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

Keep digging that hole..

You (conveniently) didn't answer the question - what's the typical cost of a public sector DB scheme...??

[sidicks]

r11co said:

You are a boring prig with a massive chip on your shoulder about this one issue.]

You keep making claims that don't stack up - there's nothing in it for me if public sector schemes were to be made fairer and more sustainable. Plenty in it for the poorest in society, who could have taxpayers money spent on services for them, rather than on pensions for public sector employees.

But you've still not worked that out yet!

[dave123456]

Sheepshanks said:

speedyguy said:

dave123456 said:

jules_s said:

dave123456 said:

these are the same ones who work the flexi system prevalent in a lot of departments to bump their holiday entitlement up by 40%.

the same job, for life, with hours to suit, 55 days leave a year and a guaranteed pension at the end? it isn't commercially viable anywhere...

Oh please, so it's moan at flexi time now?

Sorry mate... I'll keep my observations to myself in future.

Don't do that until you tell me where that job you described above is

The job for life thing has long gone - in my immediate family my wife, brother, BIL & SIL have all been made redundant from public sector jobs. My daughter's NHS job has been moved to a JV with a charity in what is clearly part of a process to cut them off from the NHS.

Around here (West Cheshire), teachers and firemen have even been made redundant as schools and firestations have closed.

most back office admin functions, obviously not nurses police etc, but where possible there is often endemic working of the clocking system, we're talking minimal lunch breaks clocked out then clocking back in to eat lunch at their desk, washing mugs up and putting coats on before clocking out etc etc. may sound trivial but over a year over a workforce it adds up.

and all of this is defended with a frightening degree of ferocity. in fairness I'm being harsh as some of them work their fingers to the bone and deserve more, way more, than they are paid, but some of the middle management in administrative departments should be ashamed of themselves. some...not all!

[mph1977]

crankedup said:

For all the discussions regarding these pensions it seems the Government is not overly concerned and allows the various schemes to continue. If Government is not unduly concerned that must indicate the issue is relatively minor?

they have changed the schemes in the past decade or so , both Neue Arbeit and the coallition

FS to CARE

employee contributiuons increased

increased normal retirement ages

and contrary to the bluff and bluster merchants and their deliberate misunderstanding of the purchasder = -provider split the money does 'change ownership ' for employers contributions ...