Unsustainable public sector pensions

[sidicks]

Rovinghawk said:

So the NHS pension scheme generates more money than it costs? This is fantasy accounting that even Enron at its worst wouldn't suggest.

Don't feed the troll retard NHS employee!

[Rovinghawk]

sidicks said:

Don't feed the troll retard NHS employee!

IMHO he actually believes what he's written.

[sidicks]

Rovinghawk said:

IMHO he actually believes what he's written.

It's been explained to him on numerous occasions. Unfortunately he so much wants it to be true and doesn't have the technical understanding to see the obvious flaws in his claims.

Good job he's a nurse not an actuary!

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

mph1977 said:

some people when attempting to prove how unaffordable public sector pensions are have a horrid habit of comparing employee contributions in Public sector schemes with the whole contribution in other schemes or
even the whole contribution and tax reliefs ...

The money comes from two sources- the beneficiary & (ultimately) the taxpayer. There is no other source of money.

mph1977 said:

despite the fact the the pension scheme adminstrator for the schemes recieves a employer contribution and in the PAYG public secotr schemes, has , does and will continue to return a surplus to the exchequer year on year ...

So the NHS pension scheme generates more money than it costs? This is fantasy accounting that even Enron at its worst wouldn't suggest.

The 'taxpayer' in the form of the exchequer buys services from service providers

These service providers employ people i.e. they are employers

the employee and the employer pay towards the pension

the NHS pension and some of the other PAYG public sector pensions have, do and continue to take more in contributions than they pay out ... therefore rather than building the fund which is what a funded scheme does, this surplus returns to the exchequer ( no Enron , just willful misunderstanding fro mthe chicken littles )

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

The 'taxpayer' in the form of the exchequer buys services from service providers

These service providers employ people i.e. they are employers

the employee and the employer pay towards the pension

And as explained above - the taxpayer funds the vast majority of the pension, which was the issue under discussion before you turned up with your ignorant nonsense.

mph1977 said:

the NHS pension and some of the other PAYG public sector pensions have, do and continue to take more in contributions than they pay out ... therefore rather than building the fund which is what a funded scheme does, this surplus returns to the exchequer ( no Enron , just willful misunderstanding fro mthe chicken littles )

Wilful misunderstanding from the nurse...


Please can the nurse explain what the value of pensions being paid out has to do with the value of benefits being accrued..?
Thanks!

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

mph1977 said:

The 'taxpayer' in the form of the exchequer buys services from service providers

These service providers employ people i.e. they are employers

the employee and the employer pay towards the pension

And as explained above - the taxpayer funds the vast majority of the pension, which was the issue under discussion before you turned up with your ignorant nonsense.

mph1977 said:

the NHS pension and some of the other PAYG public sector pensions have, do and continue to take more in contributions than they pay out ... therefore rather than building the fund which is what a funded scheme does, this surplus returns to the exchequer ( no Enron , just willful misunderstanding fro mthe chicken littles )

Wilful misunderstanding from the nurse...


Please can the nurse explain what the value of pensions being paid out has to do with the value of benefits being accrued..?
Thanks!

You repeatedly fail to distinguish between employers and the exchequer having to provide additional funds when talking aobut the 'tax payer' funding these pensions - this is 'dog whistle ' politics at it;s best for the powerfully built be goateed sociopath demographic PH is reknown for.

This is deliberate and wilful mis representation to imply that the pension scheme is requiring support over and above the income it derives from employees and employers ( where the converse is true ).

The surplus generated is significant as much of the faux concern by the chicken littles
is about the absence of a fund as well as the chicken little figures of the future liabilities over the next perhaps 90 years , remind me how the fund in a funded scheme is created ...

Edited by mph1977 on Monday 11th January 18:16

[Du1point8]

sidicks said:

mph1977 said:

The 'taxpayer' in the form of the exchequer buys services from service providers

These service providers employ people i.e. they are employers

the employee and the employer pay towards the pension

And as explained above - the taxpayer funds the vast majority of the pension, which was the issue under discussion before you turned up with your ignorant nonsense.

mph1977 said:

the NHS pension and some of the other PAYG public sector pensions have, do and continue to take more in contributions than they pay out ... therefore rather than building the fund which is what a funded scheme does, this surplus returns to the exchequer ( no Enron , just willful misunderstanding fro mthe chicken littles )

Wilful misunderstanding from the nurse...


Please can the nurse explain what the value of pensions being paid out has to do with the value of benefits being accrued..?
Thanks!

Most NHS are like this... My mother has had it explained to her several times now (I give up now and change the topic), the amount of bullst that are fed to the NHS staff mean that they actual believe what they are being told.

She is a union person and a radiologist too.

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

you repeatedly fail to distinguish between employers and the exchequer havign to provide additional funds when talking aobut the 'tax payer' funding these pensions

this is deliberate and wilful mis representation to imply that the pension scheme is requiring support over and above the income it derives from employees and employers ( where the converse is true )

You're still wrong, because you still don't understand pension accrual.

mph1977 said:

the surplus generated is significant as much of the faux concern by the chicken little is aboput the absence of a fund as well as the chicken little figures of the future liabilities over the next perhaps 90 years , remind me how the fund in a funded scheme is created ...

It's nothing to do with funded or unfunded pensions - the cost to the taxpayer is basically the same.

If you knew as much about pensions as you (apparently) do about chicken, you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself.

[mph1977]

Du1point8 said:

Most NHS are like this... My mother has had it explained to her several times now (I give up now and change the topic), the amount of bullst that are fed to the NHS staff mean that they actual believe what they are being told.

She is a union person and a radiologist too.

or more likely you can;t see your own confirmation bias and still deliberately confuse the taxpayer (Exchequer) as a purchaser of services and the taxpayer (exchequer) as a provider of bali outs.

[anonymous-user]

mph1977 said:

The 'taxpayer' in the form of the exchequer buys services from service providers

These service providers employ people i.e. they are employers

the employee and the employer pay towards the pension

the NHS pension and some of the other PAYG public sector pensions have, do and continue to take more in contributions than they pay out ... therefore rather than building the fund which is what a funded scheme does, this surplus returns to the exchequer ( no Enron , just willful misunderstanding fro mthe chicken littles )

Correct; as you explain here the middle ey comes from the taxpayer. Why are you arguing?

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

or more likely you can;t see your own confirmation bias and still deliberately confuse the taxpayer (Exchequer) as a purchaser of services and the taxpayer (exchequer) as a provider of bali outs.

You still don't understand the basics - it was helpfully set out for you above:

Rovinghawk said:

The money comes from two sources- the beneficiary & (ultimately) the taxpayer. There is no other source of money.

Until you understand and acknowledge that basic fact, there is no hope for you.

[sawman]

sidicks said:

superlightr said:

So as self-employed bod I would need to pay in the equivalent of of £1.5million to funds myself a £50k pension.

How much does a public sector worker have to put in fund the same pension?

Dependent on which public sector scheme, but around £300-£500k on average.

I am currently chucking just over £900 a month to my nhs pension , my theoretical fund will be just over £1.1M, I am told it will be worth the equivalent of an income of about 22k a year by the time I am due to retire in 10 years. I have been in the scheme for 25 years so far - out of interest how does than compare to civvy street?

Edited by sawman on Monday 11th January 18:37

[Du1point8]

sawman said:

sidicks said:

superlightr said:

So as self-employed bod I would need to pay in the equivalent of of £1.5million to funds myself a £50k pension.

How much does a public sector worker have to put in fund the same pension?

Dependent on which public sector scheme, but around £300-£500k on average.

I am currently chucking just over £900 a month to my nhs pension , my theoretical fund will be just over £1.1M, I am told it will be worth the equivalent of an income of about 22k a year by the time I am due to retire in 10 years. I have been in the scheme for 25 years so far - out of interest how does than compare to civvy street?

so if you have always put in £900 and the average working span is what... 45 years.

Thats £486k you have done if assuming you did £900 a month from the start and the rest is made up by taxpayers.

Edited by sawman on Monday 11th January 18:37

[sidicks]

sawman said:

I am currently chucking just over £900 a month to my nhs pension , my theoretical fund will be just over £1.1M, I am told it will be worth the equivalent of on income of about 22k a year by the time I am due in 10 years. I have been in the scheme for 25 years so far - out of interest how does than compare to civvy street?

Difficult to say without further information, but your numbers do not seem to add up.

However, roughly you are paying £10,000 per annum into your pension. Over 35 years this would amount to £350,000 ( probably less as contributions 25 years ago would have been much lower) plus interest.

A n index-linked pension of £22k at age 65 would costs around £675k in the real world so your £1.1m fund value appears optimistic or there are other issues not accounted for in the above).

[sidicks]

Du1point8 said:

sawman said:

I am currently chucking just over £900 a month to my nhs pension , my theoretical fund will be just over £1.1M, I am told it will be worth the equivalent of an income of about 22k a year by the time I am due to retire in 10 years. I have been in the scheme for 25 years so far - out of interest how does than compare to civvy street?

so if you have always put in £900 and the average working span is what... 45 years.

Thats £486k you have done if assuming you did £900 a month from the start and the rest is made up by taxpayers.

To be fair there will be considerable interest on the money but there are other factors mentioned in my previous post that move things the other way, regardless, we still agree that there is a large taxpayer subsidy required!

[Rovinghawk]

mph1977 said:

You repeatedly fail to distinguish between employers and the exchequer having to provide additional funds when talking aobut the 'tax payer' funding these pensions -

Either the taxpayer contributes via the employer or the taxpayer contributes via the exchequer.

Either way ISTM that the taxpayer pays. Any amount of moving money between theoretical pots is clouding that simple fact.

Whilst I defer to Sidicks' greater knowledge on the subject, I'm a long way from being financially illiterate. I would suggest that you are actually financially dyslexic or wilfully ignorant.

[sidicks]

Rovinghawk said:

Either the taxpayer contributes via the employer or the taxpayer contributes via the exchequer.

Either way ISTM that the taxpayer pays. Any amount of moving money between theoretical pots is clouding that simple fact.

Whilst I defer to Sidicks' greater knowledge on the subject, I'm a long way from being financially illiterate. I would suggest that you are actually financially dyslexic or wilfully ignorant.

I think the politically correct term is 'special'...

[sawman]

sidicks said:

Difficult to say without further information, but your numbers do not seem to add up.

However, roughly you are paying £10,000 per annum into your pension. Over 35 years this would amount to £350,000 ( probably less as contributions 25 years ago would have been much lower) plus interest.

A n index-linked pension of £22k at age 65 would costs around £675k in the real world so your £1.1m fund value appears optimistic or there are other issues not accounted for in the above).

Cheers, yes payments years ago was nothing like current payments, even ten years ago my contributions were only 200 a month. Obviously my employer does add contributions. My total fund and expected income are based on data from nhs pensions website. Sounds like it was a good idea (for me) not to opt out of the scheme as many did in 1990

[sidicks]

sawman said:

Cheers, yes payments years ago was nothing like current payments, even ten years ago my contributions were only 200 a month. Obviously my employer does add contributions. My total fund and expected income are based on data from nhs pensions website. Sounds like it was a good idea (for me) not to opt out of the scheme as many did in 1990

They could massively reduce the benefits from the current scheme and it would still definitely be worth staying in!

[Du1point8]

sidicks said:

sawman said:

Cheers, yes payments years ago was nothing like current payments, even ten years ago my contributions were only 200 a month. Obviously my employer does add contributions. My total fund and expected income are based on data from nhs pensions website. Sounds like it was a good idea (for me) not to opt out of the scheme as many did in 1990

They could massively reduce the benefits from the current scheme and it would still definitely be worth staying in!

Yet in my company they will only match £300 for my pension, anything above is what you want to add yourself.

So if it was £900 in by me each month, they would give me another £300, making my pension pot laughably small.