Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
travel is dangerous said:
Don’t forget this is a private pension scheme backed by employers and not an unfunded government scheme like the TPS.
It is a scheme with a deficit which is likely to get bigger as time goes by. Where will the money come from to plug the shortfall? I put it to you that it will be the taxpayer.My taxes keep increasing and the reasons given include care for the elderly, reducing the deficit & funding both the public sector & its pension liabilities.
Presuming that widespread senile euthanasia is unacceptable and that reducing the deficit is financially sensible, cutting public sector costs seems to be the way forward. You'll be facing pretty much the same situation as the majority of workers, just a few years later and possibly to a much lesser extent.
Striking against economic/demographic reality will not change that reality, no matter how much of a critical thinker you presume yourself to be.
travel is dangerous said:
sidicks said:
I guess that’s why we have professionals to do these things?
Of course the history of this century so far has demonstrated that professionals, especially in the financial arena, rarely get things wrong, and always act in the best interest of those they are supposed to be acting for. To question a professional would really be innappropriate.People who work in universities are some of the best trained critical thinkers, they can apply this skill in unfamiliar areas relatively easily. That’s what they’re doing here.
You option is to either receive that as salary or have it paid into a pension scheme of your choice along with your own 8%? You can pick the fund/s or engage a professional to do that with you? You can decide your own assumptions and therefore base your own choices on your own risk profile etc.?
That sound ok to you?
Ps - is this what you are requesting/insisting on or have I misunderstood?
travel is dangerous said:
Of course the history of this century so far has demonstrated that professionals, especially in the financial arena, rarely get things wrong, and always act in the best interest of those they are supposed to be acting for. To question a professional would really be innappropriate.
You’re quite right. Those responsible for calculating the funding of DB pension schemes have consistently got it wrong. By massively underestimating the true cost of such provision. Hence the vast collective deficit in UK DB schemes. Are you suggesting that they’re now getting it just as wrong but in the completely opposite direction by massively overestimating the funding required?
lauda said:
You’re quite right. Those responsible for calculating the funding of DB pension schemes have consistently got it wrong. By massively underestimating the true cost of such provision. Hence the vast collective deficit in UK DB schemes.
Are you suggesting that they’re now getting it just as wrong but in the completely opposite direction by massively overestimating the funding required?
Whilst at the same time, he claims that investing the exact same contributions at 5% return produces a massively lower benefit!!Are you suggesting that they’re now getting it just as wrong but in the completely opposite direction by massively overestimating the funding required?
No idea where he thinks the shortfall is going...
travel is dangerous said:
Universities in the UK are some of the best in the world. We need to be able to employ the best people.
God help us then! The problem I am seeing from todays Uni graduates is they are some of the most narrow minded individuals out there.
I think Jordan Peterson was right when he said "University does more damage than good now."
A strong statement from a University professor.
Anyway.....
travel is dangerous said:
You will be earning substantially less, as, say, a law professor than you could as the students you educate will earn within a few years of their graduation. Your pension is therefore an important part of the remuneration package, and it's value is being cut by roughly £10,000 a year in retirement. Perhaps now you understand why so many people are so outraged.
Am I missing something here? If you are early enough in your career for it to make a serious financial dent in your pension then surely you are early enough to move into the profession your students are moving into?
I hear this all the time from people, how outraged they are that moving forward things are not looking quite as good as they were hoping, yet they never seem to do anything about it, why? Because they are lazy, we like to stick with what we know and know we like.*
Go and put yourself down with a Recruitment Agency, with your history you could no doubt walk into a job paying double, then you can put half of it away to fund the pension you have lost.
- I put myself in that category too by the way. I lost my rather decent pension in 2009, but I stuck with it as I like it here, then in 2013 the company was struggling after the bank pulled funding, I could either take a 40% paycut and stay or leave, I stayed. I am a 50% shareholder, my wife also owns 20% now as well, this year we have both taken our wages down by a considerable amount, I could go and work in McDonalds and probably earn more. I knew this when taking it on, but I have been doing this for 20 years now, I know I like it and like it because I know it. But I had to make that decision, do I want to carry on doing this, something I really enjoy, or move and get a much higher wage and a decent pension scheme? Lazy won.
Edited by gizlaroc on Friday 23 February 10:21
egor110 said:
Perhaps the truth is pensions are a outdated concept ?
The whole idea you worked until you were 60 then dead by the time you we're 80 meant your average pension only had to last 20 years however now people are living into the 90's even 100's now your pension somehow has to last 35-40 years .
Not according to the Directors of defunct Carillion! The whole idea you worked until you were 60 then dead by the time you we're 80 meant your average pension only had to last 20 years however now people are living into the 90's even 100's now your pension somehow has to last 35-40 years .
What alternatives are there for working people?
Not sure why people are waffling on about education, universities are businesses pure and simple, education stops at 16/18 anything else is paying a business for a piece of paper. Sooner people stop pretending different the better we'll be. Uni really should go back to being an education but I can't see that genie going back in the bottle now it's out.
lauda said:
With all due respect, I think you’ve misunderstood a few issues here.
Your wife’s pension to 1 April 2019 will be calculated on the same basis as the pension she’s accrued up to today. That will be protected and will not change regardless of any scheme amendments that are made to post 1 April 2019. They can’t tell you what her pension will be at April 2019 because they don’t know what her earnings will be between now and then or what the impact of inflation will be on the pension she’s accrued in the CARE section in recent years.
As you say yourself, she’s had projections of her benefits but those will always change since the assumptions that underpin those projections could change or won’t be bourne out by actual experience.
I don’t think your assumption that anyone drawing their pension after 1 April 2019 will get a reduced pension is correct either. The scheme might have a £6bn deficit at present but that is based on liabilities stretching out over a period of probably the next 100 years. There’s no immediate cash flow crisis and the trustees will be required to pay full benefits to members.
The only instance in which members who have retired could potentially be in a beneficial position to active or deferred members would be if the scheme entered the PPF but the USS isn’t anywhere near that sort of crisis.
And finally, the Pensions Regulator has no power to direct the actual investment strategy of the scheme. They may challenge assumptions on future returns that the trustees use for the purpose of a funding valuation but if the trustees think that they can earn their way out of deficit using investment returns, they have the power to pursue that strategy.
With all due respect back I think I'm a little bit closer to the subject than you are. My wife is leaving far earlier than April 2019, and projections a matter of 8 weeks apart show significant decline in value although the imminent retirement date hasn't changed.Your wife’s pension to 1 April 2019 will be calculated on the same basis as the pension she’s accrued up to today. That will be protected and will not change regardless of any scheme amendments that are made to post 1 April 2019. They can’t tell you what her pension will be at April 2019 because they don’t know what her earnings will be between now and then or what the impact of inflation will be on the pension she’s accrued in the CARE section in recent years.
As you say yourself, she’s had projections of her benefits but those will always change since the assumptions that underpin those projections could change or won’t be bourne out by actual experience.
I don’t think your assumption that anyone drawing their pension after 1 April 2019 will get a reduced pension is correct either. The scheme might have a £6bn deficit at present but that is based on liabilities stretching out over a period of probably the next 100 years. There’s no immediate cash flow crisis and the trustees will be required to pay full benefits to members.
The only instance in which members who have retired could potentially be in a beneficial position to active or deferred members would be if the scheme entered the PPF but the USS isn’t anywhere near that sort of crisis.
And finally, the Pensions Regulator has no power to direct the actual investment strategy of the scheme. They may challenge assumptions on future returns that the trustees use for the purpose of a funding valuation but if the trustees think that they can earn their way out of deficit using investment returns, they have the power to pursue that strategy.
The USS has its very own pension calculator that uses your past salary and contributions history plus your present salary to do exactly what you say that they cannot do, provide a pensions forecast.
Your figures are wrong. Their admitted pensions defecit is now standing at £9 billion not £6 billion as you claim.
The £6 billion defecit is the figure they are desperately trying to down to and which is creating all the unrest within academia.
Also the defecit is not stretched over the next 100 years, its the defecit now , at this moment. Just one university in the MIdlands has a more than £300m defecit. Now multiply that by every University in the land. Then project that defecit with an aging academic population, taking yet more pensions and with employee and employer contributions static or reducing, the management explosion within Universities in the last couple of decades, leading to legions of very highly paid managers retiring with very good pensions, and the defecit as early as 2030 would be approaching the bill for HS2.
I was not saying that the Pensions regulator was dictating investment strategy. I was saying that USS wanted to use a more aggressive risk profile on their investments so that the underlying asumptions on which they base their calculations would enable them to massage the figures to show a lower defecit because the riskier investment strategy would give better forecast returns which gives lower forecast defecit.
They then would be able to say " Crisis, what crisis?"
The pensions regulator told them that they had to keep to their existing risk profile and the whatsit has hit the fan as a result.
Faced with this perfect storm there's only one way that USS pensions will go, and its not up.
Cheers,
Tony
MDMetal said:
Not sure why people are waffling on about education, universities are businesses pure and simple, education stops at 16/18 anything else is paying a business for a piece of paper. Sooner people stop pretending different the better we'll be. Uni really should go back to being an education but I can't see that genie going back in the bottle now it's out.
Not many affordable properties being built or available here in Bath but very many being built for, or owned by the Uni...some even with nice river views.Rovinghawk said:
travel is dangerous said:
Don’t forget this is a private pension scheme backed by employers and not an unfunded government scheme like the TPS.
It is a scheme with a deficit which is likely to get bigger as time goes by. Where will the money come from to plug the shortfall? I put it to you that it will be the taxpayer.My taxes keep increasing and the reasons given include care for the elderly, reducing the deficit & funding both the public sector & its pension liabilities.
Presuming that widespread senile euthanasia is unacceptable and that reducing the deficit is financially sensible, cutting public sector costs seems to be the way forward. You'll be facing pretty much the same situation as the majority of workers, just a few years later and possibly to a much lesser extent.
Striking against economic/demographic reality will not change that reality, no matter how much of a critical thinker you presume yourself to be.
Tony427 said:
With all due respect back I think I'm a little bit closer to the subject than you are. My wife is leaving far earlier than April 2019, and projections a matter of 8 weeks apart show significant decline in value although the imminent retirement date hasn't changed.
The USS has its very own pension calculator that uses your past salary and contributions history plus your present salary to do exactly what you say that they cannot do, provide a pensions forecast.
Your figures are wrong. Their admitted pensions defecit is now standing at £9 billion not £6 billion as you claim.
The £6 billion defecit is the figure they are desperately trying to down to and which is creating all the unrest within academia.
Where does your £9m come from. It was quoted as over £12m at the end of 2017, and market moves since, then will have made it worse.The USS has its very own pension calculator that uses your past salary and contributions history plus your present salary to do exactly what you say that they cannot do, provide a pensions forecast.
Your figures are wrong. Their admitted pensions defecit is now standing at £9 billion not £6 billion as you claim.
The £6 billion defecit is the figure they are desperately trying to down to and which is creating all the unrest within academia.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 23 February 11:36
crankedup said:
For me it makes no sense for the U.K. to give billions of pounds in foreign aid whilst we cannot afford to fund our own requirements. Uni’ lecturers are vital to the future of the U.K. and it makes good sense to me that we value and reward as required to attract the best. This is a system so beloved by private industry to reward FTSE boards, many of these people will have been taught in Uni’s. Failure results in further decline in U.K. fortunes, we must invest in the future imo.
For FTSE Boards we have performance related bonuses, we don’t (generally) have unsustainable DB pensions with near-unlimited future liability...MDMetal said:
Not sure why people are waffling on about education, universities are businesses pure and simple, education stops at 16/18 anything else is paying a business for a piece of paper. Sooner people stop pretending different the better we'll be. Uni really should go back to being an education but I can't see that genie going back in the bottle now it's out.
Couldn’t disagree more That is a recipe for only the wealthy to benefit leaving behind those without the cash to fund thier education, hence the Government loans. The U.K. would waste untapped talent which we cannot afford. crankedup said:
For me it makes no sense for the U.K. to give billions of pounds in foreign aid whilst we cannot afford to fund our own requirements.
It's argued that foreign aid is a form of investment that yields more than it costs. I don't know the details but that's the suggestion.crankedup said:
Uni’ lecturers are vital to the future of the U.K. and it makes good sense to me that we value and reward as required to attract the best.
How many groups could the exact same thing be said about, from doctors to roadbuilders?crankedup said:
This is a system so beloved by private industry to reward FTSE boards, many of these people will have been taught in Uni’s.
Many of them will have been breastfed too- your logic suggests that nursing mothers should also have taxpayer money thrown at them. crankedup said:
Failure results in further decline in U.K. fortunes, we must invest in the future imo.
I agree with investment but there comes a point where it can't be afforded. We are past that point.FN2TypeR said:
crankedup said:
Not according to the Directors of defunct Carillion!
What alternatives are there for working people?
Work until you die, whilst also leaning on the state as little as possible in old age regardless of your levels of contribution via taxation? What alternatives are there for working people?
Not far away from reality at all, workers cannot afford to make ends meet whilst in work, never mind contribute for thier pension. Maybe some adventurous investing into emerging markets? don’t know, sidicks may wish to comment fully.
crankedup said:
Future, what future?
Not far away from reality at all, workers cannot afford to make ends meet whilst in work, never mind contribute for thier pension. Maybe some adventurous investing into emerging markets? don’t know, sidicks may wish to comment fully.
If they weren’t subsidising public sector pensions they have more money to fund their own...Not far away from reality at all, workers cannot afford to make ends meet whilst in work, never mind contribute for thier pension. Maybe some adventurous investing into emerging markets? don’t know, sidicks may wish to comment fully.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
For me it makes no sense for the U.K. to give billions of pounds in foreign aid whilst we cannot afford to fund our own requirements. Uni’ lecturers are vital to the future of the U.K. and it makes good sense to me that we value and reward as required to attract the best. This is a system so beloved by private industry to reward FTSE boards, many of these people will have been taught in Uni’s. Failure results in further decline in U.K. fortunes, we must invest in the future imo.
For FTSE Boards we have performance related bonuses, we don’t (generally) have unsustainable DB pensions with near-unlimited future liability...sidicks said:
Tony427 said:
With all due respect back I think I'm a little bit closer to the subject than you are. My wife is leaving far earlier than April 2019, and projections a matter of 8 weeks apart show significant decline in value although the imminent retirement date hasn't changed.
The USS has its very own pension calculator that uses your past salary and contributions history plus your present salary to do exactly what you say that they cannot do, provide a pensions forecast.
Your figures are wrong. Their admitted pensions defecit is now standing at £9 billion not £6 billion as you claim.
The £6 billion defecit is the figure they are desperately trying to down to and which is creating all the unrest within academia.
Where does your £9m come from. It was quoted as over £12m at the end of 2017, and market moves since, then will have made it worse.The USS has its very own pension calculator that uses your past salary and contributions history plus your present salary to do exactly what you say that they cannot do, provide a pensions forecast.
Your figures are wrong. Their admitted pensions defecit is now standing at £9 billion not £6 billion as you claim.
The £6 billion defecit is the figure they are desperately trying to down to and which is creating all the unrest within academia.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 23 February 11:36
Cheers,
Tony
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff