Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
crankedup said:
Right’O that’s OK then. At least the Government is looking at what the cash could be used for that would be more useful than it lying around gathering market average growth. I’m all for that as I’m sure you will be.
Cash? 
Do you think government infrastructure investments will be more or less risky than diversified equity markets?
What do you think the returns from these will be, and who is paying for that?
crankedup said:
It’s a positive move but I remain very surprised that you, a professional person, knew nothing of the proposals, Do you not keep abreast of what’s on the horizons? I note you fail to address this question which I have asked on several posts.
I knew nothing about the government proposals for “Existing DB pension money to be invested in infrastructure investment due to assets lying around earning very little in terms of investment” as you claimed - The reason bring that the claim you made was nonsense, there are no such government plans.As explained above, seeing how future DC monies might be invested in assets which have a wider societal benefit is an entirely different thing. HTH
report said:
The assets in DC schemes are expected to increase sixfold by 2030 to £1.68 trillion, a sum equivalent to 15% of the current net wealth of the UK. These changes raise questions about how the new pension assets are to be invested and, in particular, whether at least a proportion could be invested for the wider social good or “social impact”.
Future DB investment is considered as a secondary issue, but of course nothing to do with poor performance of existing assets.Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 23:17
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
You keep asking me questions, I don’t know the answers to these questions, as I tell you once again, I am looking for the answers which is why I posted up my original question on the matterI would have thought that being in the pension industry you may have had an ear to this intervention. It seems the Government are concerned that the billions of pounds invested into pensions COULD be put to a more profitable use.
I believe the consultation is in respect of future contributions, primarily relating to DC pensions. So nothing to do with poor performance or assets lying doing nothing or any other similar claims.crankedup said:
That’s not my early recollection of the Governments initial statement which included the fact that billions of pounds of pension funds. hold be put to better and more profitable use.
But no evidence to this end?‘Better and more profitable’ in what way?
crankedup said:
I do not recolle t the Government saying that pension funds were lying doing nothing,
Yet that is almost exactly what you claimed previously.crankedup said:
it clearly concerned that better use of that money could be a possibility. I do not recall the Government suggesting that it will be only future payments that would be used implying that existing funds will be considered. However, it remains to be determined if or when changes will become policy.
Except that, as yet, there is no evidence for this!Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 23:34
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Right’O that’s OK then. At least the Government is looking at what the cash could be used for that would be more useful than it lying around gathering market average growth. I’m all for that as I’m sure you will be.
Cash? Do you think government infrastructure investments will be more or less risky than diversified equity markets?
What do you think the returns from these will be, and who is paying for that?
crankedup said:
It’s a positive move but I remain very surprised that you, a professional person, knew nothing of the proposals, Do you not keep abreast of what’s on the horizons? I note you fail to address this question which I have asked on several posts.
I knew nothing about the government proposals for “Existing DB pension money to be invested in infrastructure investment due to assets lying around earning very little in terms of investment” as you claimed - The reason bring that the claim you made was nonsense, there are no such government plans.As explained above, seeing how future DC monies might be invested in assets which have a wider societal benefit is an entirely different thing. HTH
report said:
The assets in DC schemes are expected to increase sixfold by 2030 to £1.68 trillion, a sum equivalent to 15% of the current net wealth of the UK. These changes raise questions about how the new pension assets are to be invested and, in particular, whether at least a proportion could be invested for the wider social good or “social impact”.
Future DB investment is considered as a secondary issue, but of course nothing to do with poor performance of existing assets.Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 23:17
The Government must have issues with the current situation regarding pensions investments.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
That’s not my early recollection of the Governments initial statement which included the fact that billions of pounds of pension funds. hold be put to better and more profitable use.
But no evidence to this end?‘Better and more profitable’ in what way?
crankedup said:
I do not recolle t the Government saying that pension funds were lying doing nothing,
Yet that is almost exactly what you claimed previously.crankedup said:
it clearly concerned that better use of that money could be a possibility. I do not recall the Government suggesting that it will be only future payments that would be used implying that existing funds will be considered. However, it remains to be determined if or when changes will become policy.
Except that, as yet, there is no evidence for this!Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 23:34
hence the proposals and further investigations, You may not like it but there you are. Expect the evidence later, one way or other, meanwhile you can thank me for alerting you to possible changes within your area of work.
crankedup said:
hence the proposals and further investigations, You may not like it but there you are. Expect the evidence later, one way or other, meanwhile you can thank me for alerting you to possible changes within your area of work.
As DB schemes mature they are looking for more bond-like assets to match pension liabilities, obviously these assets have lower expected returns than the equities they are switching out of..,
Gloria Slap said:
I think you are confusing how the pensions of those currently taking a pension are paid by those being paid now - but their salary comes from taxpayers.
I did not say those contributions pay for the pensions of those working now - these will be in turn paid for by the taxpayers in the future. I'm not mixing these things up, though it seems you are assuming I am.
I mentioned "in the main", as there are exceptions in the public sector to this general principle.
I have not said these contributions are paid into a pot and invested, which I think is where most get confused when trying to compare the public and private systems - sidicks seems to like doing this to ram his hatred of public workers getting any sort of reasonable pension down peoples throat. They are funded quite differently - in the main - and rely on the future tax income of future generations. This is not as silly as it sounds as it means the govt doesn't have to waste money paying people to "manage a pension fund" on their behalf. The government already manages an "economy" anyway, so they can cut out the leeching layers of pension management.
I fully understand that the contributions don't fully address future liabilities.
In fact this further shows how important GDP growth is to help cover the growing costs of pensions in the future with such a model. This alone won't do it of course, extending retirement age and reducing the level of benefit will still probably be required to some degree as the population ages.
Your posts on here are a strong indication that you're the one who is confused.I did not say those contributions pay for the pensions of those working now - these will be in turn paid for by the taxpayers in the future. I'm not mixing these things up, though it seems you are assuming I am.
I mentioned "in the main", as there are exceptions in the public sector to this general principle.
I have not said these contributions are paid into a pot and invested, which I think is where most get confused when trying to compare the public and private systems - sidicks seems to like doing this to ram his hatred of public workers getting any sort of reasonable pension down peoples throat. They are funded quite differently - in the main - and rely on the future tax income of future generations. This is not as silly as it sounds as it means the govt doesn't have to waste money paying people to "manage a pension fund" on their behalf. The government already manages an "economy" anyway, so they can cut out the leeching layers of pension management.
I fully understand that the contributions don't fully address future liabilities.
In fact this further shows how important GDP growth is to help cover the growing costs of pensions in the future with such a model. This alone won't do it of course, extending retirement age and reducing the level of benefit will still probably be required to some degree as the population ages.
Gloria Slap said:
hatred of public workers getting any sort of reasonable pension down peoples throat.
I think it's the unreasonable pensions that are the problem.Gloria Slap said:
They are funded quite differently - in the main - and rely on the future tax income of future generations. This is not as silly as it sounds as it means the govt doesn't have to waste money paying people to "manage a pension fund" on their behalf. The government already manages an "economy" anyway, so they can cut out the leeching layers of pension management.
You almost make it sound as if public sector pensions are a cheap alternative- well done for presenting it in this manner.Gloria Slap said:
............. the growing costs of pensions in the future with such a model. This alone (GDP growth) won't do it of course, extending retirement age and reducing the level of benefit will still probably be required to some degree as the population ages.
The population has already aged & the problem is here already. The changes which acknowledge will need to happen are required now, not at some unspecified point in the future.Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 26th February 11:30
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
hence the proposals and further investigations, You may not like it but there you are. Expect the evidence later, one way or other, meanwhile you can thank me for alerting you to possible changes within your area of work.
As DB schemes mature they are looking for more bond-like assets to match pension liabilities, obviously these assets have lower expected returns than the equities they are switching out of..,
crankedup said:
Except you knew nothing of them, you even had the gall to intimate that I was lying when I raised the issue. If you cannot be anything else at least try and be honest.
No, as explained I knew nothing about a consultation regarding “using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment.”Because no such consultation existed.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 13:03
If you are interested to see the severe impact of the proposed changes on university staff then you can visit http://uss-pension-model.com and enter ages and salaries.
PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
travel is dangerous said:
If you are interested to see the severe impact of the proposed changes on university staff then you can visit http://uss-pension-model.com and enter ages and salaries.
PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
"This is for future benefits only. The proposed changes will not impact benefits that have already been accrued, and this has not been modelled"PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
Useful that
travel is dangerous said:
If you are interested to see the severe impact of the proposed changes on university staff then you can visit http://uss-pension-model.com and enter ages and salaries.
PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
Most of your previous ones were far from factual, so that would be a good start.PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
As explained, it refers to future accrual (post 2019), and your existing benefits are protected. The 18% contribution that is being offered is extremely competitive.
Of course you do have the option to seek alternative employment.
Unfortunately, schemes like this just simply aren’t sustainable at a fair cost to the taxpayer. This was identified in the private sector 10-20 years ago, so you should be grateful they have lasted this long for you.
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
If you are interested to see the severe impact of the proposed changes on university staff then you can visit http://uss-pension-model.com and enter ages and salaries.
PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
Most of your previous ones were far from factual, so that would be a good start.PS I tried to make this post as factual as possible but I am sure sidick will find something to disagree with.
As explained, it refers to future accrual (post 2019), and your existing benefits are protected. The 18% contribution that is being offered is extremely competitive.
Of course you do have the option to seek alternative employment.
Unfortunately, schemes like this just simply aren’t sustainable at a fair cost to the taxpayer. This was identified in the private sector 10-20 years ago, so you should be grateful they have lasted this long for you.
2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
3. Of course I am free to seek alternative employment, but that is irrelevant.
4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are s
t now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector. sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Except you knew nothing of them, you even had the gall to intimate that I was lying when I raised the issue. If you cannot be anything else at least try and be honest.
No, as explained I knew nothing about a consultation regarding “using the funds for infrastructure building rather than billions of pounds lying around earning very little in terms of return on investment.”Because no such consultation existed.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 13:03
travel is dangerous said:
1. Yes, this is about changes so obviously just deals with future accrual. The earlier you are in your career, the more important that is, though.
2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
Why is happening to the other 4.5%??2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
travel is dangerous said:
3. Of course I am free to seek alternative employment, but that is irrelevant.
4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are st now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector.
You mean:4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are s
t now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector. 1) public sector workers should be immune to economics and demographics?
2) it’s a cost that other people should pay so that you can have an extremely attractive pension?
If the sixth wealthiest Country on the planet cannot afford decent pensions for employees then it’s a very poor reflection upon Government, businesses and investors.
I recall thatcher allowing businesses to take ‘pension hoilidays’ during the easy period, must have been a very easy job for pensions companies to make a quick buck too.
i can recall a company one of my bro’s worked for, printing industry, they offered a contributory pension scheme to employees for years. The Company used that money to set up a new company business for themselves before putting the old company into receivership, thieving scum.
But what of the future for those at work today when they retire with no pension, aside from the National pension which some say will not be available. They can’t all be wealthy FTSE Board Directors can they!
I recall thatcher allowing businesses to take ‘pension hoilidays’ during the easy period, must have been a very easy job for pensions companies to make a quick buck too.
i can recall a company one of my bro’s worked for, printing industry, they offered a contributory pension scheme to employees for years. The Company used that money to set up a new company business for themselves before putting the old company into receivership, thieving scum.
But what of the future for those at work today when they retire with no pension, aside from the National pension which some say will not be available. They can’t all be wealthy FTSE Board Directors can they!
sidicks said:
travel is dangerous said:
1. Yes, this is about changes so obviously just deals with future accrual. The earlier you are in your career, the more important that is, though.
2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
Why is happening to the other 4.5%??2. The employer contribution to the DC scheme is 13.5 %, not 18 %.
travel is dangerous said:
3. Of course I am free to seek alternative employment, but that is irrelevant.
4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are st now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector.
You mean:4. I disagree. This is subjective (depends on what one thinks is 'fair' to taxpayer). But I would add one thing: The fact that everyone else's pensions are s
t now is not an argument to make mine st. It's an argument to do better with the others. A decent pension has a real cost, true, but its a cost that I believe people should pay. In the private sector and in the public sector. 1) public sector workers should be immune to economics and demographics?
2) it’s a cost that other people should pay so that you can have an extremely attractive pension?
Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
crankedup said:
If the sixth wealthiest Country on the planet cannot afford decent pensions for employees then it’s a very poor reflection upon Government, businesses and investors.
You appear to be confusing ‘decent’ with ‘gold-plated’.crankedup said:
I recall thatcher allowing businesses to take ‘pension hoilidays’ during the easy period, must have been a very easy job for pensions companies to make a quick buck too.
You appear to be misinformed, not for the first time.crankedup said:
I can recall a company one of my bro’s worked for, printing industry, they offered a contributory pension scheme to employees for years. The Company used that money to set up a new company business for themselves before putting the old company into receivership, thieving scum.
Cracking anecdotal. Obviously entirely irrelevant, but very interesting nonetheless.crankedup said:
But what of the future for those at work today when they retire with no pension, aside from the National pension which some say will not be available. They can’t all be wealthy FTSE Board Directors can they!
Yes, It’s almost as if it doesn’t make sense for poor private sector workers to fund gold-plated public sector pensions, whilst being unable to fund their own pensions...Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 14:16
crankedup said:
Why don’t you proactively dedicate yourself to wanting all workers to have some sort of pension? The Govenment is doing a little to plug a hole with legislation but not nearly enough.
Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
So we should force struggling private sector workers to invest much more into pensions?Apart from the ‘we can’t afford it’ plea where will it lead to, more expense and a degenerative Society imo.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff