More years drawing a pension than contributing?
Discussion
scenario8 said:
Welshbeef said:
Biker 1 said:
I wonder how many people there are like me: interest only mortgage, no savings, no private pension provision, work for small private company. Average wage.
I guess I'll work until I drop or win the lottery...
Lots. I guess I'll work until I drop or win the lottery...
Even small companies have to offer the 1% deal increasing to 3%
Auto enrolment is an interesting development but 1% or even 3% is so ludicrously low it's a wonder it is even mentioned at all. 1% of £25k in today's money (times two) over 40 years must be worth in the region of feck all. Especially so if state pensions and/or other state benefits become means tested.
Work til I drop it is then!
Imagine govt says we need 10% employee and 10% employer from day 1 wouldn't happen. This way it's certainly erroding salary increases but for the benefit of some potential pension provision v state pension only.
Remember lots of Defined Contribution schemes only offer up to 5% employee matched by employer (or less) so it's bringing those without up to that level.
The police pension has changed a couple of times since 2006. Those with fewer than 10 years to do were left alone when the latter changes came about, so there aren't many on the 30 year scheme left to retire. You occasionally read about someone in the General Orders who retired in the 1970s at a good rank and has just died. As much as I think, 'good on them', it's evident that isn't sustainable.
Changes were always going to occur given increasing life expediency and no one currently in power needs to worry about the issues the CNC are looking at now for the rest of the police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37169994
Changes were always going to occur given increasing life expediency and no one currently in power needs to worry about the issues the CNC are looking at now for the rest of the police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37169994
sidicks said:
Just as I disputed your claims that the average senior office only lived for 3.5 years post retirements, so didn't ever claim much of their pension (when the scheme documentation showed that the true figure was more like 35 years...).
I dispute I ever said that. What I said was that in the 70s the norm was for 50% of retired officers to die between 5 and 9 years of drawing pension regardless of age on retirement. This was often shortened, incorrectly, to 7 years and I may have followed that norm. I'm impressed you could find the documentation. It took me ages to dig out the references.
It is accepted that much of this was due to the war as someone joining in 1948 - there was little recruitment before that - would have his (my figures were for male officers only) pension starting in 1978. Many would have had a difficult early life. Further, the working conditions were dreadful. Many were injured on duty and in those days were able to keep on working in back office jobs, not the most healthy of environments. The figures also included, as I probably said, those who retired on ill health grounds. But why doesn't matter for my argument. It is purely the fact that the calculation for the % of pay deducted to pay for the pension entitlements was initially way, way off, astoundingly giving the benefit to the government.
You say 35 years as the 50% norm for retired senior officers. That would make the 50% norm for senior officers to be around 90-95 years old. They used to stay on until levered out in those days, so the majority would have been 60.
Elroy Blue said:
The Oolice are starting to recruit again. Anybody who wants a 'gold plated' pension are more than welcome to apply.
There was a singular lack of a queue for the service in 1975. But then 50% of very little was worth less than half of very little. I joined for the variation in work, and the job delivered on that. The pension was a factor as I had my workplace pension embezzled when in the print. The fact that there was no fund as such was significant I felt. I didn't realise the downsides until later.
Derek Smith said:
I've told you before that just gainsaying what someone has posted is not an argument.
Where's your proof of this "profit'?Just claiming something without offering any evidence is not a credible argument.
The point is that the cost of future pensions accrual is entirely unrelated to the cost of pension in payment (as apparently needs to be explained on every pensions thread when people claim a 'surplus' on an unfunded scheme...)
Derek Smith said:
Here, I'll give you a chance to point out where I'm wrong by putting it simply. There was no fund. The government took 11.5% of gross in order, they said, to pay for the pensions of retired officers. This was the pension arrangement. However, the cost of the retired officers was significantly lower, at one time less than half, of the pay deducted. This went on until the late 90s.
See above.The cost of pensions accrual is unrelated to the cost of pensions to retired members.
Derek Smith said:
I fail to see how that can be nonsense. It was admitted by the government after a challenge, although they failed to make any changes. That's what happened. You are wrong.
The amount paid to pensioners was always less, much less in the 70s, than was taken from the pay of officers.
"An irrelevant and misleading comparison, as those who understand pensions will know."
Self aggrandisement is no more an argument that gainsaying. What I said was correct. It is not irrelevant. I think you are confusing pension funds with the pension arrangement of the police.
see aboveThe amount paid to pensioners was always less, much less in the 70s, than was taken from the pay of officers.
"An irrelevant and misleading comparison, as those who understand pensions will know."
Self aggrandisement is no more an argument that gainsaying. What I said was correct. It is not irrelevant. I think you are confusing pension funds with the pension arrangement of the police.
Derek Smith said:
I said something about the change that the government made in the pension arrangements
"Funded or unfunded is irrelevant with a government guarantee - you're just showing your lack of understanding now."
As I said gainsaying and self aggrandisement . . . Also, the point of that para was that the government realised that a funded pension would risk high wastage, hardly irrelevant when it is the basis of the para.
Derek Smith said:
You quote what you have previously posted, i.e. unevidenced rejection and suggesting you are an expert in police pension arrangements, to support your argument. That's not the way it is done.
What I've said is spot on.
I've said no such thing.What I've said is spot on.
Yet none of which is supported by official documentation - only by your 'anecdotal' evidence.
Perhaps you can provide something concrete that supports your claims.
Derek Smith said:
1/ The police pension was designed primarily to keep officers in the job. Wastage was a major problem. It was pension or reasonable pay, and the former won out. To an extent, high wastage continued right up until the independent review of police pay under labour. Once that was awarded, although not in full as I have explained, wastage dropped to more normal levels for public service.
At no point have i suggested anything different or that officers did not deserve these pensions.Derek Smith said:
2/ The % contributions of the Federated police officer was much, much higher than the posted amount, the reasons being the other ways the government could deduct pay from officers without having to admit it. I thought only idiots would believe what the government said.
youve made a claim about 5% higher, in lieu of pay rises. I've never disputed that figure, however the fact remains that amount would still require a massive tax payer subsidy. No idea why you continue to deny this?Derek Smith said:
3/ Until the late 90s the amount deducted from police wages destined, we were told, to fund the pension of retired officers, was greater than that of the amount paid out.
Which is irrelevant in terms of the cost of pensions and in no way demonstrates a 'profit'. This is really basic pensions 101, but is a line that is often trotted out by the Unions to defend schemes, either because they are trying to mislead the public or because they dont 't understand pensions...Derek Smith said:
If you have an argument against any of those statements then I'd read it and point out where you are wrong without just saying rubbish. Whether I know about pensions or not is immaterial. I know what the government did to the police. I know the lies they told.
As explained above, if you understood pensions, then you would understand the reasons why your claims above are invalid.i know the 'lies' you have told too, as far as pensions are concerned! Are you still trying to claim that senior officers only live 3.5 years into retirement on average or have you moved away from that particular gem now?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 25th August 17:18
Derek Smith said:
Elroy Blue said:
The Oolice are starting to recruit again. Anybody who wants a 'gold plated' pension are more than welcome to apply.
There was a singular lack of a queue for the service in 1975. But then 50% of very little was worth less than half of very little. I joined for the variation in work, and the job delivered on that. The pension was a factor as I had my workplace pension embezzled when in the print. The fact that there was no fund as such was significant I felt. I didn't realise the downsides until later.
Bigends said:
Exactly this - I joined a county force - age 19 in April 1975 - took home 25 quid a week - about on a par with the lowest paid manual worker back then for working a 7 day week. It didnt improve until six years after We were strapped for recruits back then as well. ( I had my driving course after three months and was out mobile regularly on my todd by that Christmas five months after return from training school.) The pension was just another signature on a form the training Sgt made us sign - I had no interest in such things at that age I just needed money for beer and fags, but reaped the benefits later - retiring at 49. Have no idea or interest as to how its calculated or funded - I paid my money and took my chance in career choice. Things have clearly changed now though
Same as Derek then 
Just to emphasise, I am not suggesting that these pensions were not deserved!
sidicks said:
Ignored the points I made.
Your post was rubbish. And I mean that most sincerely.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 25th August 17:18
I put three points up. You have answered none. That is not an argument. What I said was correct. I have no record of the report I wrote in 1987 but I remember the figures.
You keep talking about accrued pensions. You are arguing something that I have not said. I mean, top marks for tactics as you will be right, if you've done your research. But, and a very big but, the three points I posted are all true.
If you wish to point out where I am wrong the best way is to try and point out where I'm wrong. You might well know about pensions. I have no idea. But what I posted was correct. You suggest that the taxpayer funds the pension. Well of course they do. The police are paid out of various taxes. Who is saying otherwise. But - and this is what you say is incorrect - the money taken from pay was greater than the cost of pensions. That is what the deductions were meant to cover and they did so with money over until the late 90s.
I don't take to being called a liar. I view these threads as a sort of argument in a pub. If you would say that to my face in a pub then you are not the sort of person I'd be in a pub with.
Derek Smith said:
Rubbish.
Please explain how the cost of pensions to be earned in the future is related to the cost of pensions paid to current members...Derek Smith said:
I don't take to being called a liar. I view these threads as a sort of argument in a pub. If you would say that to my face in a pub then you are not the sort of person I'd be in a pub with.
Feel free to search for your previous posts discussing the topic and then I'll apologise if I'm proved wrong...
Derek Smith said:
Elroy Blue said:
The Oolice are starting to recruit again. Anybody who wants a 'gold plated' pension are more than welcome to apply.
There was a singular lack of a queue for the service in 1975. But then 50% of very little was worth less than half of very little. I joined for the variation in work, and the job delivered on that. The pension was a factor as I had my workplace pension embezzled when in the print. The fact that there was no fund as such was significant I felt. I didn't realise the downsides until later.
Anyone see that Rookies show earlier in the week.
Like the army and the fire brigade, the police attracts applicants for many reasons that have little to do with the money - there's no shortage of people who really want to do those jobs.
So, I'm still amazed that a retired DI and primary headteacher can be on pensions that are more than the average annual salary in today's money, having made contributions which are only a fraction of that in annual terms.
Given an average annual salary of £28,000 and supposing that most public servants don't start on that amount - imagine any young person entering the job market today being told that they will get a pension which will be more than they are currently earning per year?
That's what's happened to the teacher and policeman in the example.
How does that work? It is what it is, eh?
Bigends said:
Exactly this - I joined a county force - age 19 in April 1975 - took home 25 quid a week - about on a par with the lowest paid manual worker back then for working a 7 day week. It didnt improve until six years after We were strapped for recruits back then as well. ( I had my driving course after three months and was out mobile regularly on my todd by that Christmas five months after return from training school.) The pension was just another signature on a form the training Sgt made us sign - I had no interest in such things at that age I just needed money for beer and fags, but reaped the benefits later - retiring at 49. Have no idea or interest as to how its calculated or funded - I paid my money and took my chance in career choice. Things have clearly changed now though
I didn't know about the pension arrangements until I was headhunted by a big international credit card company. They gave me a document on my pension and it was a revelation. I took it to the Federation and they said it was rubbish (Sidlicks might be Federation) so I looked it all up. I was astounded. Not that it ever did me any good knowing about it, just made me a bit resentful of being lied to.But then, these HR people in the biggest credit card company in the world obviously knew nothing about pensions. But then they could have got access to really knowledgeable people before the internet and forums.
Derek Smith said:
I didn't know about the pension arrangements until I was headhunted by a big international credit card company. They gave me a document on my pension and it was a revelation.
A private company gave you a document about your police pension?Derek Smith said:
I took it to the Federation and they said it was rubbish (Sidlicks might be Federation) so I looked it all up. I was astounded. Not that it ever did me any good knowing about it, just made me a bit resentful of being lied to.
But then, these HR people in the biggest credit card company in the world obviously knew nothing about pensions. But then they could have got access to really knowledgeable people before the internet and forums.
Really? It's that the best you can do?But then, these HR people in the biggest credit card company in the world obviously knew nothing about pensions. But then they could have got access to really knowledgeable people before the internet and forums.
Bigends said:
Exactly this - I joined a county force - age 19 in April 1975 - took home 25 quid a week - about on a par with the lowest paid manual worker back then for working a 7 day week. It didnt improve until six years after We were strapped for recruits back then as well. ( I had my driving course after three months and was out mobile regularly on my todd by that Christmas five months after return from training school.) The pension was just another signature on a form the training Sgt made us sign - I had no interest in such things at that age I just needed money for beer and fags, but reaped the benefits later - retiring at 49. Have no idea or interest as to how its calculated or funded - I paid my money and took my chance in career choice. Things have clearly changed now though
But it wasn't 7 day week. It was a shift pattern & IF you wanted OT it was there so you could choose to work it (sometimes like in all jobs there is frankly a need that you must be present).
Welshbeef said:
Bigends said:
Exactly this - I joined a county force - age 19 in April 1975 - took home 25 quid a week - about on a par with the lowest paid manual worker back then for working a 7 day week. It didnt improve until six years after We were strapped for recruits back then as well. ( I had my driving course after three months and was out mobile regularly on my todd by that Christmas five months after return from training school.) The pension was just another signature on a form the training Sgt made us sign - I had no interest in such things at that age I just needed money for beer and fags, but reaped the benefits later - retiring at 49. Have no idea or interest as to how its calculated or funded - I paid my money and took my chance in career choice. Things have clearly changed now though
But it wasn't 7 day week. It was a shift pattern & IF you wanted OT it was there so you could choose to work it (sometimes like in all jobs there is frankly a need that you must be present).
Derek Smith said:
I don't take to being called a liar. I view these threads as a sort of argument in a pub. If you would say that to my face in a pub then you are not the sort of person I'd be in a pub with.
Just done a quick search on previous threads - you were claiming 3-5 years, not 3.5 years. Apologies.My point stands!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff