Final salary pension schemes should end

[robsti]

mph1977 said:

el stovey said:

I'm not sure why people on here get so excited at the prospect of someone else having their pension scheme closed.

it's because of that wel known logical fallacy of 'I pay your wages' directed towards anyone who works in the public sector.

and exactly how many private sector final salary schemes became untenable because of the Management taking 'contribution holidays' and effectively gambling an increasing proportion of the pension fund on the stock market.

mix in the myths about public sector sick pay and the gold plated pensions that MPs and high graded whitehall snivel serpents get ...

it's unsuprising that the average daily wail lower middle mangement functionary or the average red top reading NMW earner swallows the lies that the popular press put about ...

The fallacy is that public sector workers say "but we are taxpayers to" when in reallity

[mph1977]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

NHS pensions have a employee contribution of 6 -7 % depending on salary plus an 'employer contribution' of roughly 15 or 16 %

Doctors are relatively a small staff group within the NHS, compared to the AfC health professionals and other staff, as for putting in 3 K a year , how about double - triple that or more for consultants, GPs and staff Specialists as someone at the top of band 5 on 27.5 k gbp basic will be contributing between 2000 and 2500 gbp a year ...

[mph1977]

robsti said:

Why dont the goverment just raise the age of retirement for the PS by 5 years like they did for private pensoins and take the link to salarys and make it linked to contributions which would be much fairer for everybody!

it's 60 for most of the NHS as it is and most staff who have qualified in the last 20 years won't have full service in at 60 becasue theor pre-registration time won't be pensionable.

[robsti]

mph1977 said:

robsti said:

Why dont the goverment just raise the age of retirement for the PS by 5 years like they did for private pensoins and take the link to salarys and make it linked to contributions which would be much fairer for everybody!

it's 60 for most of the NHS as it is and most staff who have qualified in the last 20 years won't have full service in at 60 becasue theor pre-registration time won't be pensionable.

And your point is?

[mph1977]

robsti said:

mph1977 said:

robsti said:

Why dont the goverment just raise the age of retirement for the PS by 5 years like they did for private pensoins and take the link to salarys and make it linked to contributions which would be much fairer for everybody!

it's 60 for most of the NHS as it is and most staff who have qualified in the last 20 years won't have full service in at 60 becasue theor pre-registration time won't be pensionable.

And your point is?

it's already closer to 65 anyway, even if you start a 3 year -preg course at 18 you'll be 61 before you have full service , nevermind those who don't start courses until later, and if you are over 30 when you qualify you'll not get full service until you are 70 +

[JuniorD]

mshpool said:

Tsippy said:

Quinny said:

pugwash4x4 said:

Yes i do- do you understand just how little work the average public sector worker actually does? Not all to be sure, but some of the stuff I've seen beggars belief.

Yeah, those lazy, nurses, coppers, firemen, teachers doctors etc.... bloody spongers the lot of them

To be fair, most nurses and teachers I have encountered are quite lazy and seem to spend more time moaning than doing their jobs :P

After joining the Fire Service 24 years ago I agreed to pay 11% of my hard earned salary into a pension scheme that promised to allow me a pension. This pension is now being stolen away from me even though I paid every payment!
Your insulting comments are misguided. I would still not think twice in rescuing you and your family from harm. This is why people like me should have their pensions left alone. We are professional take risks when it goes wrong to help you plus we have paid £300 per month into them.

I know 5 firemen. They are well paid yet each have at least 1 other cash in hand job upon which they pay no tax. 3 out of the 5 have two additional jobs. By their own admission, as firemen are mostly paid to play pool and darts. They don't take risks, if a situation is personally dangerous they step back. They'll probably retire when 50. If ever there was a mob on the pig's back it's these boys. I think with the whole 'we are worth £30k' strike they burnt a lot of bridges, particularly when the Army took over and many squaddies commented they would take a fireman's job but for squaddie wages.

[robsti]

mph1977 said:

robsti said:

mph1977 said:

robsti said:

Why dont the goverment just raise the age of retirement for the PS by 5 years like they did for private pensoins and take the link to salarys and make it linked to contributions which would be much fairer for everybody!

it's 60 for most of the NHS as it is and most staff who have qualified in the last 20 years won't have full service in at 60 becasue theor pre-registration time won't be pensionable.

And your point is?

it's already closer to 65 anyway, even if you start a 3 year -preg course at 18 you'll be 61 before you have full service , nevermind those who don't start courses until later, and if you are over 30 when you qualify you'll not get full service until you are 70 +

If you start work at 16 in lots of jobs you still cant retire till your 65 and even then it will be on £120 odd which the public sector will be getting as well as their gold plated subsidised hand out!

[mph1977]

robsti said:

mph1977 said:

robsti said:

mph1977 said:

robsti said:

Why dont the goverment just raise the age of retirement for the PS by 5 years like they did for private pensoins and take the link to salarys and make it linked to contributions which would be much fairer for everybody!

it's 60 for most of the NHS as it is and most staff who have qualified in the last 20 years won't have full service in at 60 becasue theor pre-registration time won't be pensionable.

And your point is?

it's already closer to 65 anyway, even if you start a 3 year -preg course at 18 you'll be 61 before you have full service , nevermind those who don't start courses until later, and if you are over 30 when you qualify you'll not get full service until you are 70 +

If you start work at 16 in lots of jobs you still cant retire till your 65 and even then it will be on £120 odd which the public sector will be getting as well as their gold plated subsidised hand out!

an apples and pears comparision between unskilled jobs and professional jobs there ...

there are few jobs except minimum wage unskilled ones which you could start working for the 'full' wage at 16 ...

[Sticks.]

markcoznottz said:

[If we dont get growth back into the economy I dont see where the money for future payments will come from. Maybe thats the point, there wont be enough. Future payments for final salary exist only as numbers on a spreadsheet, there is no 'pot' ready to be tapped. Can see council tax being inched up to help the burden.
Final salary is in no way either a 'pension' or an investment vehicle, its is a political stunt, a guarantee of a future standard of living, you can see why labour in particular fell in love with its abilty to build a voting base.

Minor point, and not wishing to take this o/t, but in the 80s it was also a political manoeuvre. Rather than pay rises in line with the private sector, govt offered (in the civil service at least) improved the terms and benefits, including pensions, 'jam tomorrow'. It was part of Mrs T and co called 'balancing the books' but just deferred the true cost of any settlement to a later date, and perhaps a later govt.

Agree about growth though. Doesn't get much of a mention.

[sidicks]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Exactly !!

[otherman]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You are quite right. But even the investment professionals running the schemes didn't know this when the offers were made. Longevity changes and long term investment rates weren't known. So the average punter joining one of these schemes couldn't possibly be expected to have known it wasn't sustainable. So you must realise why they will feel aggrieved that they bought a promise that's evaporating

[sidicks]

otherman said:

You are quite right. But even the investment professionals running the schemes didn't know this when the offers were made. Longevity changes and long term investment rates weren't known. So the average punter joining one of these schemes couldn't possibly be expected to have known it wasn't sustainable. So you must realise why they will feel aggrieved that they bought a promise that's evaporating

Which is why the approach has to be different for future accrual and benefits already accrued.

Surely you can't expect these schemes to continue 'as is' ???

Sidicks

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 30th December 08:55

[Welshbeef]

I contribute 8% to my final salary pension which is 1/60th accrual. However from next April it's proposed to change to career average a fairer system for sure but I lose out. What can I do about it?? Little frankly as the option is career average for existing FS members and that switching to career average and defined contribution for new employees.

If we reject it our scheme is £400m in defecit currently will be closed so it's defined contribution for all. All I've spoken to will vote to accept the proposal.

Previous FS it was 3% contribution but the company made the total up to 27%.... quite a few silly bods didn't tale it still even at 32 I've got that banked c£6k in today's money in that scheme. Happy days.

Another scheme it was 5%

defined contribution the employer matched your % input up to a max of 8% but also set the range so that it encouraged you to get up to a min 6% so they were encouraging the right behaviour.

[johnxjsc1985]

Well we can all save for our future and get a whopping 1% and then pay tax on it.In the film Porridge the other night Grouty was speaking to someone who had done a bank job and he asked where he had put the money.Hastings BS came the reply 9.1% does anyone have their number.

[Du1point8]

On another thread some public sector worker was upset at the removal of the Market supplement, essentially what it was, was you the ps worker would do the same job as a private sector worker but your job was advertised at 30k and the private sector would be 40k... But have no fear as the ps would give the ps worker a Market supplement and essentially it was 10k to make the wages match, but on paper the public sector was only getting a wage of 30k so was lower than the equivalent private sector wage, even though the final figure was not... Anyone in public sector explain more about this?

[Welshbeef]

News today that by 2066 there will be half a million people over the age of 100 today it's 11,000.

So state pension kicks in at 65. .... So that's 35 years on state pension plus any company pension you have. 35 years that's more than a third of your life retired plus of course 18 years min in education so 46 years MAX to earn enough tp pay for 82 years pf living.... Even the best at maths here would fond it hard to calculate what needs to be put aside. The rest of the population they have no hope.

[johnxjsc1985]

So if we all work longer where will the jobs for the young people come from as every time someone retires it should in theory create a vacancy.

[Engineer1]

Keep up retirement age is currently 65, but by the time I can retire it will be 67 and a 1/4 assuming no further increases, but given the finances of the country retirement could be death+1week.

[johnxjsc1985]

If we keep on bumping up the retirement age to 70 where will the jobs come from we will need another million jobs or more to keep everyone in a job.

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

Even the best at maths here would fond it hard to calculate what needs to be put aside. The rest of the population they have no hope.

Na, fairly easy calculation for an Actuary...

Sidicks