Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
Countdown said:
sidicks said:
Once again the claim of envy is made (without justification).
The claim is made based on the number of threads whinging about Public Sector pensions. Why is it specifically PS pensions that causes such disgruntlement? if it's because these costs are having to be met by taxpayers then surely we should be looking at the TOTAL COST of public sector services?. For example - how much are we paying for NHS servives and how does this compare to the private sector? How much are we paying for school places and how does this compare to the private sector? Or to equivalent OECD economies?sidicks said:
You fail to answer why it is fair that the lowest paid in the private sector, who cannot afford to fund pensions of their own, are incurring higher taxes (and receiving lower public services) due to having to subsidise gold-plates pensions for people who earn more than they do.
Well, no, that's not strictly true. The lowest paid in the private sector will either be paying no tax at all OR will be taking out far more than they are paying in terms of Public Services. So they're NOT subsidising the gold plated pensions, are they?By the way the taxpayer is subsidising private sector employers via taxpayer funded) tax credits. Does that seem fair to you? And the "lowest paid in the private sector" will also have a guaranteed minimum state pension even if their salaries don't generate enough NI to fund it? Another example of private sector employers/shareholders relying on the State to act as a safety net so they can extract dividends.
el stovey said:
you're imagining your tax share is going exclusively to pay for the things you disagree with.
Please don't tell me what I think.el stovey said:
Why not imagine your tax goes entirely towards stuff you approve of or make use of?
please don't tell me what I should think.el stovey said:
Then you will be less angry.
I'm not angry- I simply see that something is unaffordable & will only get worse unless something is done.el stovey said:
Either way, your tax contributions won't decrease if public sector pensions are decimated.
I see them increasing on a regular basis & don't expect to see them lessening. As the problem gets worse the requirement for additional funds will increase.egor110 said:
I'm not so sure after the last load of government cuts there are many desk pilots left and if there are I'm pretty sure there workload has vastly increased.
Even worse, when you complain to their 'superiors' you just find more of the same.
sidicks said:
Blatantly wrong - it shouldn't be too hard to work out that paying contributions of circa 10% of actual salary per annum for 40 years is going to be massively insufficient to fund a pension of 66% of final salary for 25 years or more increasing with inflation, without massive subsidy from the employer / taxpayer.
When people were expected to live for 5-10years in retirement the balance was much more achievable.
The revisions to schemes to CARE etc help slightly but not significantly in terms of ongoing affordability.
once again paying circa 30 % of salary for a pension of circa 50 % of salary ... When people were expected to live for 5-10years in retirement the balance was much more achievable.
The revisions to schemes to CARE etc help slightly but not significantly in terms of ongoing affordability.
lies , damn lies and statistics again Sidicks, just becasue the employer contribution isn't printed on the pay slip ...
never mind the reality for many public sector schemes that a significant proption of people in them can never achieve maximum contributions or only achieve maximum contributions by working to or beyond the state pension age never mind the scheme's normal pension ages ...
mph1977 said:
once again paying circa 30 % of salary for a pension
Please show any scheme requiring 30% of salary to be paid by the employee.Doesn't matter which- any will be fine.
( 'Employer's contributions'- These contributions are purely nominal and as such do not actually exist.)
mph1977 said:
a significant proption of people in them can never achieve maximum contributions or only achieve maximum contributions by working to or beyond the state pension age never mind the scheme's normal pension ages ...
Compare what goes in with what comes out. Those with lesser service periods or smaller contributions quite rightly get less out, but it's still excessively generous in relation to what they put in.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Friday 27th November 10:35
Rovinghawk said:
Please show any scheme requiring 30% of salary to be paid by the employee.
Doesn't matter which- any will be fine.
here we come down the fundamental misapprehensions of those who want to play chicken little figures and when it suits them beleive that the public sector is a single monolith. Doesn't matter which- any will be fine.
in a recent thread a GP pointed out that his cost from practice income to the NHS Doctors and Dentists pension scheme was around 30 % , ca.10 % through his payslip and the rest as 'employer' contributions.
mph1977 said:
in a recent thread a GP pointed out that his cost from practice income to the NHS Doctors and Dentists pension scheme was around 30 % , ca.10 % through his payslip and the rest as 'employer' contributions.
What percentage of PS pensions is this relevant to? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%?egor110 said:
Rovinghawk said:
In short, many can't afford a decent pension as they're busy paying for the very generous pensions of others.
Or maybe there paying mortgages or car finance deals on things they can't actually afford , rather than having a smaller house or older car and paying more into there pension.Nowadays it's all about keeping up with the jones's.
Yet Sidicks has already shown that if I pay 10% of my company's gross, I'll get the same pension as a public sector administrative team leader earning the same gross salary as my tax bill...
As for there not being many desk jockeys in the public sector - bolleaux. Every single county Hall, the dvla, hmrc, NHS, dwp, defra and all the others are chock full of normal office jobs pushing paper or emails around.
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
in a recent thread a GP pointed out that his cost from practice income to the NHS Doctors and Dentists pension scheme was around 30 % , ca.10 % through his payslip and the rest as 'employer' contributions.
What percentage of PS pensions is this relevant to? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%?with regard to the NHS the total contributions remitted to the NHSBSA who adminster pensions from the relevant employers consist of the employer and employee contributions , plus the relevant information regarding what income tax /NI treatment they have had ...
Sway said:
egor110 said:
Rovinghawk said:
In short, many can't afford a decent pension as they're busy paying for the very generous pensions of others.
Or maybe there paying mortgages or car finance deals on things they can't actually afford , rather than having a smaller house or older car and paying more into there pension.Nowadays it's all about keeping up with the jones's.
Yet Sidicks has already shown that if I pay 10% of my company's gross, I'll get the same pension as a public sector administrative team leader earning the same gross salary as my tax bill...
As for there not being many desk jockeys in the public sector - bolleaux. Every single county Hall, the dvla, hmrc, NHS, dwp, defra and all the others are chock full of normal office jobs pushing paper or emails around.
You can spout endless replies here , nothing is going to change other than you getting more and more pissed off.
It's similar to people who went to uni compared to those that started work and worked there way up the ladder, the uni people are bitter that they have a degree/phd yet are being looked by the simpletons that started work and worked there way up the company ladder and now earn more despite not having a degree.
We all made our career choices , sometimes they seem good until later life when you find out although you were taking home more money the lower paid public sector types actually had decent pensions despite earning less.
el stovey said:
Because that's the deal the public sector employees signed up for.
That's the crappest argument for public sector pensions to remain utterly unaffordable I've ever heard.I used to work for a company with an FS scheme. As employees we accepted we needed to pay a considerable chunk into it for it to remain remotely viable. The company was also piling money in hand-over-first trying to keep it working.
It got to the point where there was no option but to close the scheme; propping it up would have taken the company down within a few years if not.
The fact that we had 'signed up' for it didn't miraculously make it affordable, or even sensible.
But hey, I'm just advocating a 'race to the bottom'* by pointing this out.
- Copyright PCS Union
egor110 said:
And like i said earlier you have the choice of joining the public sector super awesome pension gravy train or staying as you are.
I'm sorry, but that argument is just plain ridiculous. In order to have a fair, decent society, we need an efficient and successful public and private sector. The two rely on each other for either to operate successfully. So let's just get away from the 'them and us' mentality. Neither is more important or worthy than the other and neither deserves to be treated differently from the other when it comes to the risks and rewards of employment.
Interesting to note also that even senior local government leaders accept that ther employees' pensions are unaffordable.
Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
mph1977 said:
all of them
with regard to the NHS the total contributions remitted to the NHSBSA who adminster pensions from the relevant employers consist of the employer and employee contributions , plus the relevant information regarding what income tax /NI treatment they have had ...
It's almost as if you're too stupid to understand who the 'employer' is.with regard to the NHS the total contributions remitted to the NHSBSA who adminster pensions from the relevant employers consist of the employer and employee contributions , plus the relevant information regarding what income tax /NI treatment they have had ...
And you're clearly too stupid to understand about a pension fund 'surplus' (despite it having been explained to you on numerous occasions..
egor110 said:
We all made our career choices , sometimes they seem good until later life when you find out although you were taking home more money the lower paid public sector types actually had decent pensions despite earning less.
What do you mean it's none of their bloody business and they should shut their jealous spiteful faces? THEY own the public sector because THEIR tax pays for it ALL. THEY'VE got a right to demand someone else's pension get reduced. If I'd wanted a public sector job and a public sector final salary pension, I would have got a job in the public sector. I didn't because I thought I could do better and be happier elsewhere.
Oh sorry, I forgot, it's not about career choices or dislike of the public sector, it's only about concern for future generations.
PorkInsider said:
That's the crappest argument for public sector pensions to remain utterly unaffordable I've ever heard.
I used to work for a company with an FS scheme. As employees we accepted we needed to pay a considerable chunk into it for it to remain remotely viable. The company was also piling money in hand-over-first trying to keep it working.
It got to the point where there was no option but to close the scheme; propping it up would have taken the company down within a few years if not.
The fact that we had 'signed up' for it didn't miraculously make it affordable, or even sensible.
But hey, I'm just advocating a 'race to the bottom'* by pointing this out.
Same with my pension but why does that mean someone in another company or industry or sector should also have their pension reduced? I used to work for a company with an FS scheme. As employees we accepted we needed to pay a considerable chunk into it for it to remain remotely viable. The company was also piling money in hand-over-first trying to keep it working.
It got to the point where there was no option but to close the scheme; propping it up would have taken the company down within a few years if not.
The fact that we had 'signed up' for it didn't miraculously make it affordable, or even sensible.
But hey, I'm just advocating a 'race to the bottom'* by pointing this out.
- Copyright PCS Union
The difference in the public sector is that it is affordable just that the government don't want to fund it anymore.
el stovey said:
Same with my pension but why does that mean someone in another company or industry or sector should also have their pension reduced?
The difference in the public sector is that it is affordable just that the government don't want to fund it anymore.
What total nonsense - by the same token 'any' public spending is 'affordable' - unfortunately the magic money tree that you seem to believe in just doesn't exist.The difference in the public sector is that it is affordable just that the government don't want to fund it anymore.
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? 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...
Around here (West Cheshire), teachers and firemen have even been made redundant as schools and firestations have closed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff