Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
mph1977 said:
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 ...
What's the average total cost for a typical public sector DB scheme?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 ...
What's the average employee contribution for such a scheme??
sidicks said:
What's the average total cost for a typical public sector DB scheme?
What's the average employee contribution for such a scheme??
1. you would argue ( by your own biased presumpotions) is immaterial as in the PAYG schemes , the fund is subsumed back to the exhcequer , other sources give a cost of high 20s to low 30% percent of the headline salary (and made up of employee + employer contributions and the tax treatment ) What's the average employee contribution for such a scheme??
2. employee contribution is only part of the contribution , something which your ideological blinkers do not seem ot be able to accept. the excact figures depending on scheme , part and earnings are publicly available from the relevant administrators...
mph1977 said:
1. you would argue ( by your own biased presumpotions) is immaterial as in the PAYG schemes , the fund is subsumed back to the exhcequer ,
I would argue no such thing - the ultimate cost of these schemes is exactly the problem.mph1977 said:
other sources give a cost of high 20s to low 30% percent of the headline salary (and made up of employee + employer contributions and the tax treatment )
What 'other sources' - credible evidence please not bluster and bullst.mph1977 said:
2. employee contribution is only part of the contribution ,
Please stop avoiding the question.,.The taxpayer pats the majority of the cost - something I'm not avoiding - indeed that's precisely my point!!
mph1977 said:
something which your ideological blinkers do not seem ot be able to accept. the excact figures depending on scheme , part and earnings are publicly available from the relevant administrators...
You tiny little mind appears to be struggling with the concept that these pensions are funded from just two sources - employee contributions and taxpayer contributions.The average employee contributions are insufficient to fund even a quarter of the benefit, hence the taxpayer having to make a massive subsidy.
It's strange that this basic fact is too much for you to comprehend!
You also fail to understand that the true total cost of the scheme is not the total of the employee contribution rate and the notional employer contribution rate shown in the scheme literature!!
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 28th November 20:22
sidicks said:
You tiny little mind appears to be struggling with the concept that these pensions are funded from just two sources - employee contributions and taxpayer contributions.
The average employee contributions are insufficient to fund even a quarter of the benefit, hence the taxpayer having to make a massive subsidy.
It's strange that this basic fact is too much for you to comprehend!
you seem to assume that people are employed by the 'the taxpayer' and not by their actual employer who is contracted to deliver services on behalf of the relevant government dept.The average employee contributions are insufficient to fund even a quarter of the benefit, hence the taxpayer having to make a massive subsidy.
It's strange that this basic fact is too much for you to comprehend!
this basic fact appears to have escaped your notice ...
you have set up a fallacious strawman to appeal to the ' public sector is bad' fanboys , implying that the the exchequer is pumping large amountso f additional funds into the PS pension schemes, when in fact at least some of the PAYG schemes are returning money to the exchequer.
sidicks said:
...these pensions are funded from just two sources - employee contributions and taxpayer contributions.
For public servants, they're the same thing. sidicks said:
The average employee contributions are insufficient to fund even a quarter of the benefit, hence the taxpayer having to make a massive subsidy.
It doesn't matter - people who choose to devote themselves to a life of public service deserve to be looked after.mph1977 said:
you seem to assume that people are employed by the 'the taxpayer' and not by their actual employer who is contracted to deliver services on behalf of the relevant government dept.
this basic fact appears to have escaped your notice ...
You seem to be oblivious to where that funding ultimately comes from!this basic fact appears to have escaped your notice ...
mph1977 said:
you have set up a fallacious strawman to appeal to the ' public sector is bad' fanboys , implying that the the exchequer is pumping large amountso f additional funds into the PS pension schemes, when in fact at least some of the PAYG schemes are returning money to the exchequer.
I've made no such strawman - looks like your comprehension is even less advanced than your economics and mathematics!And you still don't understand about a scheme being in 'surplus' or otherwise!!
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 28th November 20:29
Sheepshanks said:
It doesn't matter - people who choose to devote themselves to a life of public service deserve to be looked after.
The vast majority of public sector workers haven't 'devoted themselves' to anything, they are just doing a job.No-one is saying that they shouldn't be 'looked after', just that the private sector shouldn't be giving them massive subsidies.
HTH
sidicks said:
The vast majority of public sector workers haven't 'devoted themselves' to anything, they are just doing a job.
No-one is saying that they shouldn't be 'looked after', just that the private sector shouldn't be giving them massive subsidies.
HTH
and this sums up you r biaed, and envious attitude in one doesn't it ... No-one is saying that they shouldn't be 'looked after', just that the private sector shouldn't be giving them massive subsidies.
HTH
Sheepshanks said:
It doesn't matter - people who choose to devote themselves to a life of public service deserve to be looked after.
Devote themselves?? A life of public service??? Oh please! That may well be true for a small majority, for the others it's just a job, really, it is. If it was a calling we wouldn't have the "computer says no" bks and council jobsworths.
mph1977 said:
and this sums up you r biaed, and envious attitude in one doesn't it ...
You honestly believe that the vast majority of public sector workers aren't simply doing jobs that they have chosen to do, but have chosen to 'sacrifice' themselves for the good of the country?That makes as much sense as most of the nonsense you're spouted on this thread!
Oh, having failed the mathematical argument you've now resorted to the 'envy' one instead, have you?
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 28th November 20:37
sidicks said:
You honestly believe that the vast majority of public sector workers aren't simply doing jobs that they have chosen to do, but have chosen to 'sacrifice' themselves for the good of the country?
That makes as much sense as most of the nonsense you're spouted on this thread!
and what is your evidence they haven't. That makes as much sense as most of the nonsense you're spouted on this thread!
mondeoman said:
Devote themselves?? A life of public service??? Oh please!
That may well be true for a small majority, for the others it's just a job, really, it is. If it was a calling we wouldn't have the "computer says no" bks and council jobsworths.
vast majority of whom are employed by 'good' 'profit making' private companies now as opposed to the assaults on TaCoS that Sidicks and his cronies are promoting for jobs with little comparator data fro mthe private sector or inconveniently 'wrong' data if you compare the scope and size of roles ... That may well be true for a small majority, for the others it's just a job, really, it is. If it was a calling we wouldn't have the "computer says no" bks and council jobsworths.
vonuber said:
I could have got a decent pension as an engineer working for the council (you know, replacing all the ones they fired to save money, then suddenly realised they needed, and now can't afford due to even more cuts).
If I wanted to take a 25k paycut for the same level of position that is.
And there's the rhub. It only took to the second page (which is where I'll stop reading).If I wanted to take a 25k paycut for the same level of position that is.
Public pay is well below the market rates. As a mid to senior finance manager similar private sector positions would easily pay 30% plus.
But do said employees then put that money into pensions? No. They spend it on that skiing holiday, and new audis with silly led lights.
I think elements of the public sector pension unaffordable, particularly senior-ish people who have left at 50 (now 55) who can draw hefty sums of cash out at a large cost to their employer.
But there's no way anyone can tell me this doesn't happen in the private sector.
Also, yes I can identify the job for life culture that exists in some parts of the public sector (less so with people joining since about 2008). I don't equate this to abuse of flexi-time: When used well it can increase productivity.
One thing to remember is that the public sector is there to "serve" - many see it as a vocation, and a lot of the grotty jobs are not sexy or praise worthy, and are a raw deal compared to, say working in Lidl.
Ian
mph1977 said:
vast majority of whom are employed by 'good' 'profit making' private companies now as opposed to the assaults on TaCoS that Sidicks and his cronies are promoting for jobs with little comparator data fro mthe private sector or inconveniently 'wrong' data if you compare the scope and size of roles ...
Assaults in TaCoS ?!Of course they 'devoted themselves to public service' (as long as you don't try and evolve their benefits into something that recognises the economics of the 21st or even 20th century...
sidicks said:
Certainly my wife was 'just doing a job' when she worked in the NHS and her experience of her colleagues suggests exactly the same!
mine has nearly done 40 years she start at 7.30am and she is still taking text messages at 7.30pm and on weekends hardly just going through the motions and she is not uniqueIan Geary said:
Public pay is well below the market rates.
ONS data says that on average (for directly comparable roles) this is not the case, but if you have evidence to the contrary then I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear your input!!Ian Geary said:
But do said employees then put that money into pensions? No. They spend it on that skiing holiday, and new audis with silly led lights.
I think elements of the public sector pension unaffordable, particularly senior-ish people who have left at 50 (now 55) who can draw hefty sums of cash out at a large cost to their employer.
But there's no way anyone can tell me this doesn't happen in the private sector.
What the private sector does with its own money is up to them. Private sector pensions are not benefitting from massive subsidies from someone else, unlike public sector pensions.I think elements of the public sector pension unaffordable, particularly senior-ish people who have left at 50 (now 55) who can draw hefty sums of cash out at a large cost to their employer.
But there's no way anyone can tell me this doesn't happen in the private sector.
Also, yes I can identify the job for life culture that exists in some parts of the public sector (less so with people joining since about 2008). I don't equate this to abuse of flexi-time: When used well it can increase productivity.
Ian Geary said:
One thing to remember is that the public sector is there to "serve" - many see it as a vocation, and a lot of the grotty jobs are not sexy or praise worthy, and are a raw deal compared to, say working in Lidl.
Ian
You're deluded.Ian
P
No one has claimed that there aren't plenty of committed people in the public sector.
johnxjsc1985 said:
mine has nearly done 40 years she start at 7.30am and she is still taking text messages at 7.30pm and on weekends hardly just going through the motions and she is not unique
You appear to be under the (false) impression that a couple of examples are indicative of the whole (or even the majority).No one has claimed that there aren't plenty of committed people in the public sector.
sidicks said:
You appear to be under the (false) impression that a couple of examples are indicative of the whole (or even the majority).
No one has claimed that there aren't plenty of committed people in the public sector.
I never worked in the public sector but I met an awful lot of wkers in the private sector who didn't deserve to breathe let alone earn money.No one has claimed that there aren't plenty of committed people in the public sector.
what about my Sister who did 35 years on nights on A&E I know plenty of public employees all of them good honest people and I know a lot of people who work in the private sector who are lucky to be in any job.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff