Final salary pension schemes should end

[Sticks.]

From what Hutton said this morning, one way the Pri Sec hasn't done it's bit is in saving for retirement. 2/3 pri sec, have no provision at all. Pub sec pensions may be unaffordable now, and that's being tackled, but the lack of pri sec provision is a potentialy huge unaffordable cost for the future.

btw he also said average pub sec pension was @ £5k pa.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Quinny said:

I get a pension....one that I contributed to, agreed to and earned..... For those that don't like it TOUGH st

FFS - why are there so many retards on this thread?!

We are talking about future accrual not existing benefits!!

Why are you resorting to childish insults?

[Tsippy]

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

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

el stovey said:

I agree with that. Not closing/transferring schemes for current members though.

No, closing the scheme to new members and for future accrual for existing members. They should not touch pensions accrued to date.

Are you saying that current members should still retire on the same final salary pension they are currently involved in?

[Legend83]

el stovey said:

sidicks said:

Quinny said:

I get a pension....one that I contributed to, agreed to and earned..... For those that don't like it TOUGH st

FFS - why are there so many retards on this thread?!

We are talking about future accrual not existing benefits!!

Why are you resorting to childish insults?

Maybe because he has repeated himself about 5 times?

It's not difficult to understand that an attack on public sector pensions does not mean knocking on retired public sector worker's doors and demanding they pay some their entitlement back!

It means ensuring that any future accrued benefits of existing pension members AND the allowance of new entrants are managed in a way that makes it more affordable to the State.

Not rocket-science.

So stop with the "it's not fair to take away benefits that people have contractually earnt" waffle.

[jagracer]

el stovey said:

sidicks said:

Many private sector employees also started with a final salary pension scheme which was subsequently removed when it was found to be unaffordable. There is no reason why the public sector should be any different.

Why should there be any connection between the two? Any of us could have gone to work in the public sector and get a FS pension. Most didn't because we thought we could get more elsewhere.

I have a private FS private sector pension, should I have mine removed because some other companies closed theirs?

You shouldn't, but like myself you probably will pretty soon, unless of course you are near to retirement age now.

[Legend83]

el stovey said:

sidicks said:

el stovey said:

I agree with that. Not closing/transferring schemes for current members though.

No, closing the scheme to new members and for future accrual for existing members. They should not touch pensions accrued to date.

Are you saying that current members should still retire on the same final salary pension they are currently involved in?

I think he is suggesting that a line be drawn at a point under FS schemes - this would be kept in a pot and treated at retirement age as an FS scheme.

Subsequent years of pensionable work should not be under an FS scheme?

E.g. 24-65 working age, worked for 10 years under FS scheme, gets 10/80th of salary at point scheme is closed on retirement. Final 31 years would be under a different scheme.

Do I have that right Siddicks?

[anonymous-user]

Legend83 said:

el stovey said:

sidicks said:

Quinny said:

I get a pension....one that I contributed to, agreed to and earned..... For those that don't like it TOUGH st

FFS - why are there so many retards on this thread?!

We are talking about future accrual not existing benefits!!

Why are you resorting to childish insults?

Maybe because he has repeated himself about 5 times?

It's not difficult to understand that an attack on public sector pensions does not mean knocking on retired public sector worker's doors and demanding they pay some their entitlement back!

It means ensuring that any future accrued benefits of existing pension members AND the allowance of new entrants are managed in a way that makes it more affordable to the State.

Not rocket-science.

So stop with the "it's not fair to take away benefits that people have contractually earnt" waffle.

No need to get upset.

Surely the lion share of these pension costs are being payed to retirees & nobody is arguing against closing schemes to new entrants.

So this discussion is all about continuing to award the same or close to the same pension to current members. Why is it waffle? Do you think it's fair that these people shouldn't get to retire on a FS pension? If not why not?

[jagracer]

robsti said:

Quinny said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

el stovey said:

I don't agree.

Why should people not get the agreed pension they have worked for. Stop it for new joiners or even tinker with the contributions but not end it for current members.

It doesn't seem very fair to me.

Quite right... I signed a contract that agreed to certain terms and conditions.... One of those conditions, was that in exchange for my labour, skills, loyalty etc, I would receive a very nice final salary pension...

I held up my part of the contract for 25 years...

I signed a contract with my private pension provider that if I chose I could retire at 50! and the goverment retrospectivly changed that to 55 so whats the difference?

The government didn't change your contract...

Who did then?

What's to stop you taking your pension now, if you are over 50?

[anonymous-user]

jagracer said:

el stovey said:

sidicks said:

Many private sector employees also started with a final salary pension scheme which was subsequently removed when it was found to be unaffordable. There is no reason why the public sector should be any different.

Why should there be any connection between the two? Any of us could have gone to work in the public sector and get a FS pension. Most didn't because we thought we could get more elsewhere.

I have a private FS private sector pension, should I have mine removed because some other companies closed theirs?

You shouldn't, but like myself you probably will pretty soon, unless of course you are near to retirement age now.

O.K. but if my FS scheme gets closed, why should that have any baring on someone else's pension arrangements?

[jagracer]

el stovey said:

jagracer said:

el stovey said:

sidicks said:

Many private sector employees also started with a final salary pension scheme which was subsequently removed when it was found to be unaffordable. There is no reason why the public sector should be any different.

Why should there be any connection between the two? Any of us could have gone to work in the public sector and get a FS pension. Most didn't because we thought we could get more elsewhere.

I have a private FS private sector pension, should I have mine removed because some other companies closed theirs?

You shouldn't, but like myself you probably will pretty soon, unless of course you are near to retirement age now.

O.K. but if my FS scheme gets closed, why should that have any baring on someone else's pension arrangements?

I can't see as it would although I am missing your point on this one TBH but I have only just seen the thread so may have missed something. It's all a touchy point with me at the moment as my FS scheme is being suspended from next April.

[anonymous-user]

jagracer said:

It's all a touchy point with me at the moment as my FS scheme is being suspended from next April.

Sorry to hear that.

Will your employer transfer you onto a money purchase scheme or similar?

Did your employer have a large scheme deficit to make up before the scheme was closed or do they no longer need to do that before closing a scheme?

[jagracer]

el stovey said:

jagracer said:

It's all a touchy point with me at the moment as my FS scheme is being suspended from next April.

Sorry to hear that.

Will your employer transfer you onto a money purchase scheme or similar?

Did your employer have a large scheme deficit to make up before the scheme was closed or do they no longer need to do that before closing a scheme?

Not sure about any deficit but the figures show they can no longer afford it, it's been heading south for years. I'll still get my FS pension on retirement but only multiplied by the No of years I have contributed. They have offered a money purchase scheme with smart payments (I think that's what it's called) but after the crap performance of my original private money purchase scheme and the fact I'll only be paying for 10 years or so I may not bother with it.

[robsti]

jagracer said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

el stovey said:

I don't agree.

Why should people not get the agreed pension they have worked for. Stop it for new joiners or even tinker with the contributions but not end it for current members.

It doesn't seem very fair to me.

Quite right... I signed a contract that agreed to certain terms and conditions.... One of those conditions, was that in exchange for my labour, skills, loyalty etc, I would receive a very nice final salary pension...

I held up my part of the contract for 25 years...

I signed a contract with my private pension provider that if I chose I could retire at 50! and the goverment retrospectivly changed that to 55 so whats the difference?

The government didn't change your contract...

Who did then?

What's to stop you taking your pension now, if you are over 50?

The age of taking a private pension has been increased to 55!

[jagracer]

robsti said:

jagracer said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

el stovey said:

I don't agree.

Why should people not get the agreed pension they have worked for. Stop it for new joiners or even tinker with the contributions but not end it for current members.

It doesn't seem very fair to me.

Quite right... I signed a contract that agreed to certain terms and conditions.... One of those conditions, was that in exchange for my labour, skills, loyalty etc, I would receive a very nice final salary pension...

I held up my part of the contract for 25 years...

I signed a contract with my private pension provider that if I chose I could retire at 50! and the goverment retrospectivly changed that to 55 so whats the difference?

The government didn't change your contract...

Who did then?

What's to stop you taking your pension now, if you are over 50?

The age of taking a private pension has been increased to 55!

Ah, when was that? I could have taken mine a year ago (I think) but as it has lost so much money and was only worth about £150 PA I decided not to bother, I'm 53 BTW.

[robsti]

jagracer said:

robsti said:

jagracer said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

robsti said:

Quinny said:

el stovey said:

I don't agree.

Why should people not get the agreed pension they have worked for. Stop it for new joiners or even tinker with the contributions but not end it for current members.

It doesn't seem very fair to me.

Quite right... I signed a contract that agreed to certain terms and conditions.... One of those conditions, was that in exchange for my labour, skills, loyalty etc, I would receive a very nice final salary pension...

I held up my part of the contract for 25 years...

I signed a contract with my private pension provider that if I chose I could retire at 50! and the goverment retrospectivly changed that to 55 so whats the difference?

The government didn't change your contract...

Who did then?

What's to stop you taking your pension now, if you are over 50?

The age of taking a private pension has been increased to 55!

Ah, when was that? I could have taken mine a year ago (I think) but as it has lost so much money and was only worth about £150 PA I decided not to bother, I'm 53 BTW.

When Brown was in No 11 about 2 years ago!

[voyds9]

Surprised no-one has mentioned the promotion six months before retirement.

[sidicks]

Quinny said:

Hey dhead, less of the retard....

Apologies, but I've repeatedly stated that this should apply to future accrual of benefits and you keep taking about reducing existing benefits earned etc, which is not being discussed.

Sidicks

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 7th October 19:07

[sidicks]

Legend83 said:

I think he is suggesting that a line be drawn at a point under FS schemes - this would be kept in a pot and treated at retirement age as an FS scheme.

Subsequent years of pensionable work should not be under an FS scheme?

E.g. 24-65 working age, worked for 10 years under FS scheme, gets 10/80th of salary at point scheme is closed on retirement. Final 31 years would be under a different scheme.

Do I have that right Siddicks?

YES!

Sidicks

[Eddw86]

Dupont666 said:

sidicks said:

Quinny said:

I personally couldn't give a toss about what other people have earned, negotiated, been given or whatever...

I do however care, that ordinary workers, who signed contracts in good faith, and then in some cases spent their whole working life, with said company, get what they were promised, and agreed to at the time...

1) Contracts indicate the current terms. There is no reason to expect that these will never change over a 40-year+ working lifetime

2) Those people will get the benefits promised and earned to date.

Quinny said:

In many cases, the pension was used as a bargaining tool, to keep certain workers on lower pay...

3) One of the conclusions of the Hutton report is that public secotr workers do not have lower pay than equivalent private sector workers.

Sidicks

Point 3a)

Public sector used the boom time of the private sector (notice I didnt say banking only) as an excuse to give themselves huge wages and then are now using the Unions with strike action as an excuse to keep on giving better pay when cuts are needed.

Private sector on the other hand already trimmed the fat meaning even less money for the public sector to use, but did this 2 years ago and are now coming out of the other side... Public secotr workers see this in bonuses etc and complain and bh that why are they getting bonuses when we are losing jobs..

your over 2 years behind the private sector.

This issue has to be adressed by everyone and private sector has done their bit and now the public secotr is refusing as its all the private sectors fault and always has been...

This is almost word for word my reposte to a public sector working friend of mine. I'm not even one of the legendary big bonus bankers that the public sector use as an excuse for everything.

It's head in the sand NIMBY type stuff.