Unsustainable public sector pensions

[sidicks]

Downward said:

How does subsidising the rail benefit the majority of folk ?

You really don't understand the importance of the rail system for London (in particular) which drives the whole economy?

[mph1977]

CarlosFandango11 said:

Do you have any evidence to back up your extraordinary claim that public sector DB schemes return surpluses to the exchequer?

A quick google suggests that your claim is rubbish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/934653...

prfeviously cited with regard to the NHS scheme.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

I'm not sure why you can't understand that the costs of pensions for public sector workers - whether that be in direct taxpayer funded partial contributions, or via an unfunded future provision assumed to cost 1.5-2% of future GDP (as it is today) - is PART OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE. It is amusing to see you condescendingly argue that some don't understand how they are funded, when it is quite simple.

Why is so special about public sector workers that pensions are essential for them to do their jobs, yet this same link doesn't exist for the vast majority of directly comparable roles in the private sector?

///adj said:

Equally, you argue green energy and rail provides benefits for the majority of the population - but why when paying these companies do the govt give them enough money to allow them to pay their employees enough to have a pension?

Should the grants/subsidies be cut to remove the part of the salary of these private workers that funds THEIR pension - it only benefits them so why should taxpayers subsidise it? That is no use to the majority of the population is it? Why don't we just cut all that - it is worsening the situation for taxpayers? [b{And don't try and imply the private sector no longer has pensions, its not true [/b]

Once again you are great and making up things sothat you can immediately dismiss them!

What do you think is the average employer pension contribution in the private sector?
What proportion of the private sector still have DB schemes open to new members?
How about to new accrual?
Why you do think that is?

You don't have talk some nonsense.

///adj said:

neither is it true they get paid the same.

And yet the ONS dats would disagree with you, and they seem more trustworthy than your random anecdotes - we are talking about averages based on an extensive analysis!

Hmm. So you don't think nurses and firefighters deserve pensions? I thought you thought they did? Which is it?

What sort of pension do you think a nurse working for 40 years and average earnings of £15k deserves to retire with? How should it be funded? What would you change? Pay the nurse more to make more contributions (from taxpayers of course)? Or just slash their pension to a level difficult to live on in retirement? It seems like it is only the latter that will keep you happy.

[mph1977]

///ajd said:

I'm not sure why you can't understand that the costs of pensions for public sector workers - whether that be in direct taxpayer funded partial contributions, or via an unfunded future provision assumed to cost 1.5-2% of future GDP (as it is today) - is PART OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE. It is amusing to see you condescendingly argue that some don't understand how they are funded, when it is quite simple.

this seems to be the fundamental misapprehension that is being held by sidicks et al.

they seem tobe unable to distinguish between the costs as built in the price of the service and the requirement for additional support over and above this - which is the case of some of the PAYG public sector schemes has , is and remains the the opposite direction ( back to the exchequer)...

[dave123456]

mph1977 said:

///ajd said:

I'm not sure why you can't understand that the costs of pensions for public sector workers - whether that be in direct taxpayer funded partial contributions, or via an unfunded future provision assumed to cost 1.5-2% of future GDP (as it is today) - is PART OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE. It is amusing to see you condescendingly argue that some don't understand how they are funded, when it is quite simple.

this seems to be the fundamental misapprehension that is being held by sidicks et al.

they seem tobe unable to distinguish between the costs as built in the price of the service and the requirement for additional support over and above this - which is the case of some of the PAYG public sector schemes has , is and remains the the opposite direction ( back to the exchequer)...

not really, the point is the pension is indicative of the inefficiency of the whole shebang, where other businesses are forced to rein in, the public sector, on a wave of entitlement, ploughs on.

it isn't a misapprehension, more a inability to understand why the benefactors of these charitable employers are not a little less militant and a little more grateful.

[barryrs]

///ajd said:

Hmm. So you don't think nurses and firefighters deserve pensions? I thought you thought they did? Which is it?

What sort of pension do you think a nurse working for 40 years and average earnings of £15k deserves to retire with? How should it be funded? What would you change? Pay the nurse more to make more contributions (from taxpayers of course)? Or just slash their pension to a level difficult to live on in retirement? It seems like it is only the latter that will keep you happy.

A nurse on £15k, seriously?

My sister works as a theatre assistant and earns considerably more than that.

[///ajd]

barryrs said:

///ajd said:

Hmm. So you don't think nurses and firefighters deserve pensions? I thought you thought they did? Which is it?

What sort of pension do you think a nurse working for 40 years and average earnings of £15k deserves to retire with? How should it be funded? What would you change? Pay the nurse more to make more contributions (from taxpayers of course)? Or just slash their pension to a level difficult to live on in retirement? It seems like it is only the latter that will keep you happy.

A nurse on £15k, seriously?

My sister works as a theatre assistant and earns considerably more than that.

No, my bad. Average of £30k say. What should they be allowed to expect as a pension after 40 years service?

Sidicks seems to suggest only £5k or less given current contribution levels. Should a nurse live on £5k a year in retirement?

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

this seems to be the fundamental misapprehension that is being held by sidicks et al.

they seem tobe unable to distinguish between the costs as built in the price of the service and the requirement for additional support over and above this - which is the case of some of the PAYG public sector schemes has , is and remains the the opposite direction ( back to the exchequer)...

Demonstrating (once again) that you understand nothing about the accrual of benefits in a pensions fund, and the cost of pensions in payment is entirely unrelated to the contributions received in respect of future pensions.

Welcome to the mph1977 pension scheme - benefits in retirement of £100k per annum, contributions of only £1 per member per year. As noone is currently retired there is a surplus, so nothing to worry about and the fund is totally affordable...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 29th November 20:08

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

No, my bad. Average of £30k say. What should they be allowed to expect as a pension after 40 years service?

Sidicks seems to suggest only £5k or less given current contribution levels. Should a nurse live on £5k a year in retirement?

I've said no such thing - please stop making up nonsense.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

No, my bad. Average of £30k say. What should they be allowed to expect as a pension after 40 years service?

Sidicks seems to suggest only £5k or less given current contribution levels. Should a nurse live on £5k a year in retirement?

I've said no such thing - please stop making up nonsense.

So what do you think they should expect as a salary? And how should it be funded? Put your cards on the table.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

Hmm. So you don't think nurses and firefighters deserve pensions?

For fks sake - where have I said any such thing?

It's getting very tedious with you pretending I've said stuff I clearly have not.

///adj said:

I thought you thought they did? Which is it?

You do realise there is a mass of possibilities between 'no pension' and ''gold-plated pension' ??

///adj said:

What sort of pension do you think a nurse working for 40 years and average earnings of £15k deserves to retire with? How should it be funded? What would you change? Pay the nurse more to make more contributions (from taxpayers of course)? Or just slash their pension to a level difficult to live on in retirement? It seems like it is only the latter that will keep you happy.

Where did I say that? Please find me my quote that says that...


It seems like not only do you not understand the basics of pension scheme funding and accruals you don't understand basic English, why else would you keep claiming my opinions are totally different from what I've actually said??

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 29th November 20:09

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

So what do you think they should expect as a salary? And how should it be funded? Put your cards on the table.

How else is it going to be funded apart from the taxpayer?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 29th November 22:25

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

So what do you think they should expect as a salary? And how should it be funded? Put your cards on the table.

How else is it going to be funded apart from the taxpayer?

you seem to be incapableof distingi#uishing three seperate concepts

1. the costs of the pensionscheme as built into the current wage bill

2. the fact that PAYG is a political decision

3. the difference between the taxpayers money that pays for the costs of the services provided and tax payer monery being used solely as support at the point where a PAYG scheme outflow exceeds inflow / where a funded scheme cannot meet it's obligations

[///ajd]

sidicks - deflect, avoid, etc.

are you a member of the SNP?

of course funded by the taxpayer, where did I say it shouldn't be?

So, how much should a nurse expect with career average of £30k?
How would the taxpayer fund it - make higher contributions? how much higher?

Outline a solution.

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

Why is so special about public sector workers that pensions are essential for them to do their jobs

This implies you don't think they need pensions.

If you want to clarify you just mean they should have lowered benefits than they enjoy now, then please give us an example of a solution for the theoretical nurse on average salary of £30k over 40 years, with 7% contributions today. Lets say they expect a £15k pension. What would you change, and what would be the outcome?

[johnfm]

///ajd said:

sidicks - deflect, avoid, etc.

are you a member of the SNP?

of course funded by the taxpayer, where did I say it shouldn't be?

So, how much should a nurse expect with career average of £30k?
How would the taxpayer fund it - make higher contributions? how much higher?

Outline a solution.

She should 'expect' a sum reflecting how much of her salary she has contributed to her pension.

The numbers are pretty simple really. If a nurse retires at 65 and wants a £20k/yr pension they need to stick circa £400k or so into a pot over their 35-40 year working life. ( that's about 5% yield)

That's £10k a year for a 40 year working life. At a 5% contribution of a £30k salary, she is sticking in £1500 a year. So just an £8,500 shortfall.

Of course these are really really crude numbers - there'd be compound gains in the pot over 40 years before any drawdown etc. Of course, the big killer is pension fund managers' fees. No doubt these parasitic losses mean more public money required.

It is complex.

[greygoose]

mph1977 said:

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

So what do you think they should expect as a salary? And how should it be funded? Put your cards on the table.

How else is it going to be funded apart from the taxpayer?

you seem to be incapableof distingi#uishing three seperate concepts

1. the costs of the pensionscheme as built into the current wage bill

2. the fact that PAYG is a political decision

3. the difference between the taxpayers money that pays for the costs of the services provided and tax payer monery being used solely as support at the point where a PAYG scheme outflow exceeds inflow / where a funded scheme cannot meet it's obligations

You won't get an answer of how much the pension will be, sidicks likes to proclaim his intelligence but won't explain.

[mph1977]

johnfm said:

///ajd said:

sidicks - deflect, avoid, etc.

are you a member of the SNP?

of course funded by the taxpayer, where did I say it shouldn't be?

So, how much should a nurse expect with career average of £30k?
How would the taxpayer fund it - make higher contributions? how much higher?

Outline a solution.

She should 'expect' a sum reflecting how much of her salary she has contributed to her pension.

The numbers are pretty simple really. If a nurse retires at 65 and wants a £20k/yr pension they need to stick circa £400k or so into a pot over their 35-40 year working life. ( that's about 5% yield)

That's £10k a year for a 40 year working life. At a 5% contribution of a £30k salary, she is sticking in £1500 a year. So just an £8,500 shortfall.

Of course these are really really crude numbers - there'd be compound gains in the pot over 40 years before any drawdown etc. Of course, the big killer is pension fund managers' fees. No doubt these parasitic losses mean more public money required.

It is complex.

employer contributions in the NHS scheme are not that low for professional staff - the 30 k salary person would be paying 9.3 % employee contribution...

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/Documents/Pensio...

and completely ignores the employers contribution ...

hence the chicken little figures floating around ...

Edited by mph1977 on Sunday 29th November 20:41

[voyds9]

How about we compare nurses to the clergy

Seems a fair comparison, both callings, both long hours, both have unpalatable aspects

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2001/nov/25/wages...

An old article but pay £20,000 + accommodation (? £8500) and a pension of 2/3rds of salary (£13,500)

[vonuber]

I'm no pension expert - luckily my other half is APMI accredited, so I'll get her to look at what sidicks is saying
Or just ask her, but it's a rather dull topic. All I know is that apparently my pension is st.