Final salary pension schemes should end
Discussion
Why is everyone getting so worked up about something that doesn't effect them, whether they have a public sector final salary pension or not? This isn't about any current provision.
Just heard a union bloke going on about how this is an attack on his members. Er, let's get this straight then? you are defending the interests of people who AREN'T in the union and DON'T work in the public sector, because they HAVEN'T actually been born yet!
Just heard a union bloke going on about how this is an attack on his members. Er, let's get this straight then? you are defending the interests of people who AREN'T in the union and DON'T work in the public sector, because they HAVEN'T actually been born yet!
Edited by Balmoral Green on Thursday 7th October 19:26
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 s
t
FFS - why are there so many retards on this thread?!tWe are talking about future accrual not existing benefits!!
Quinny is obviously talking about his future accrual also. He is clearly a current FS scheme member and is facing his scheme changing to a lesser scheme in some way.
As I and he have both said it might be fair enough for some small changes to his current scheme but not to close his scheme and replace it with something else. EVEN assuming he keeps his whatever/80s he has attained so far.
It's clear to anyone that his existing benefits plus any new scheme will be much less than if he kept his current scheme.
My point before you started insulting me was that assuming retirees keep getting paid their FS pension and the scheme is closed to current members (and replaced with something else for the remaining of their employment ) there will still be huge costs with public sector pensions, regardless of what happens to current members.
Balmoral Green said:
Why is everyone getting so worked up about something that doesn't effect them, whether they have a public sector final salary pension or not? This isn't about any current provision.
It does affect current members. Their FS scheme will stop for the remainder of the time they are public sector workers and will be replaced with a lesser scheme.They will end up with a much smaller pension.
el stovey said:
Balmoral Green said:
Why is everyone getting so worked up about something that doesn't effect them, whether they have a public sector final salary pension or not? This isn't about any current provision.
It does affect current members. Their FS scheme will stop for the remainder of the time they are public sector workers and will be replaced with a lesser scheme.They will end up with a much smaller pension.
el stovey said:
Balmoral Green said:
Why is everyone getting so worked up about something that doesn't effect them, whether they have a public sector final salary pension or not? This isn't about any current provision.
It does affect current members. Their FS scheme will stop for the remainder of the time they are public sector workers and will be replaced with a lesser scheme.They will end up with a much smaller pension.
Great. One advantage of joining the forces is the pension you get at the end. All that time away, hard (but mostly satisfying) work, doing something for the country. Now they are looking to change it. This will put a lot of people off doing a full career - we will lose not only people but experience which is probably more important. Result; less capable/effective armed forces.
Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
el stovey said:
It does affect current members. Their FS scheme will stop for the remainder of the time they are public sector workers and will be replaced with a lesser scheme.
They will end up with a much smaller pension.
For the last time, it doesn't affect benefits accrued to date. It does affect future accrual for existing members, but that is something they haven't earned yet (and hence have no automatic right to expect).They will end up with a much smaller pension.
I can understand why they might be disappointed in losing this fantastic benefit, but unfortunately it is not affordable, so they will now have to face the same pension issues as the rest of us in the private sector.
Sidicks
el stovey said:
Ok now that you've finished insulting everyone. . .
I did apologise for that, but it is frustrating when people are clearly not reading what has been posted!el stovey said:
Quinny is obviously talking about his future accrual also. He is clearly a current FS scheme member and is facing his scheme changing to a lesser scheme in some way.
No he is not, he has clearly stated that he has already retired and receiving his benefits (which are unaffected).el stovey said:
As I and he have both said it might be fair enough for some small changes to his current scheme but not to close his scheme and replace it with something else. EVEN assuming he keeps his whatever/80s he has attained so far.
What makes you think you have a right to something that hasn't been earned yet?el stovey said:
It's clear to anyone that his existing benefits plus any new scheme will be much less than if he kept his current scheme.
Yes clearly, and clearly the current scheme is unaffordable.el stovey said:
My point before you started insulting me was that assuming retirees keep getting paid their FS pension and the scheme is closed to current members (and replaced with something else for the remaining of their employment ) there will still be huge costs with public sector pensions, regardless of what happens to current members.
Not sure what your point is?Yes the huge cost of benefits earned to date has to be funded - there is nothing we can (or should) do about that. What we can do is ensure that future benefits are more affordable, which is exactly what is being proposed.
Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 7th October 20:31
ben_h100 said:
Great. One advantage of joining the forces is the pension you get at the end. All that time away, hard (but mostly satisfying) work, doing something for the country. Now they are looking to change it. This will put a lot of people off doing a full career - we will lose not only people but experience which is probably more important. Result; less capable/effective armed forces.
Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
I thought they had specified that changes might not affect the armed forces?Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
sidicks said:
ben_h100 said:
Great. One advantage of joining the forces is the pension you get at the end. All that time away, hard (but mostly satisfying) work, doing something for the country. Now they are looking to change it. This will put a lot of people off doing a full career - we will lose not only people but experience which is probably more important. Result; less capable/effective armed forces.
Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
I thought they had specified that changes might not affect the armed forces?Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
sidicks said:
el stovey said:
My point before you started insulting me was that assuming retirees keep getting paid their FS pension and the scheme is closed to current members (and replaced with something else for the remaining of their employment ) there will still be huge costs with public sector pensions, regardless of what happens to current members.
Not sure what your point is?Yes the huge cost of benefits earned to date has to be funded - there is nothing we can (or should) do about that. What we can do is ensure that future benefits are more affordable, which is exactly what is being proposed.
Sidicks
We still have to fund retired public sector workers FS pensions.
We still have to supply a lesser pension to new public sector employees
We still have to fund current members FS pension so far and then whatever next pension replaces it.
I think the government ought to meet the obligation made to current employees workers and pay them the pension they joined under even if it costs a bit more. Paying these pensions isn't going to bring down the country. Concentrate on making savings by reducing waste and inefficiency and saving money on people who could but don't contribute to society.
ben_h100 said:
sidicks said:
ben_h100 said:
Great. One advantage of joining the forces is the pension you get at the end. All that time away, hard (but mostly satisfying) work, doing something for the country. Now they are looking to change it. This will put a lot of people off doing a full career - we will lose not only people but experience which is probably more important. Result; less capable/effective armed forces.
Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
I thought they had specified that changes might not affect the armed forces?Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
el stovey said:
Balmoral Green said:
Why is everyone getting so worked up about something that doesn't effect them, whether they have a public sector final salary pension or not? This isn't about any current provision.
It does affect current members. Their FS scheme will stop for the remainder of the time they are public sector workers and will be replaced with a lesser scheme.They will end up with a much smaller pension.
ben_h100 said:
Great. One advantage of joining the forces is the pension you get at the end. All that time away, hard (but mostly satisfying) work, doing something for the country. Now they are looking to change it. This will put a lot of people off doing a full career - we will lose not only people but experience which is probably more important. Result; less capable/effective armed forces.
Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
Doesn't affect the armed forces pension scheme I believe.Oh, and we don't have a union to fight our corner and we can't strike.
el stovey said:
My point is,
We still have to fund retired public sector workers FS pensions.
We still have to supply a lesser pension to new public sector employees
We still have to fund current members FS pension so far and then whatever next pension replaces it.
Yes - agreed!We still have to fund retired public sector workers FS pensions.
We still have to supply a lesser pension to new public sector employees
We still have to fund current members FS pension so far and then whatever next pension replaces it.
el stovey said:
I think the government ought to meet the obligation made to current employees workers and pay them the pension they joined under even if it costs a bit more. Paying these pensions isn't going to bring down the country.
Just to remind you:- Government debt on balance sheet is around £1 trillion
- Other goverment debt hidden off balance sheet (pensions and PFI) is another £1-£2 trillion
- We are still borrowing an extra £150 billion or so each year which will reduce to zero by 2016 based on government projections
- There are around 5.5m of public sector employees
There is no obligation to continue these unaffordable benefits and certainly no money available to do so!!
Replacing them with something cheaper and more affordable is a no-brainer.
el stovey said:
Concentrate on making savings by reducing waste and inefficiency and saving money on people who could but Don't contribute to society.
We need to do this as well!Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 7th October 21:08
JagLover said:
el stovey said:
Balmoral Green said:
Why is everyone getting so worked up about something that doesn't effect them, whether they have a public sector final salary pension or not? This isn't about any current provision.
It does affect current members. Their FS scheme will stop for the remainder of the time they are public sector workers and will be replaced with a lesser scheme.They will end up with a much smaller pension.
Anyway, clearly some people think it's fair to close these schemes to current members others don't.
I'm not going to argue any more with anyone about it.
JagLover said:
Not necessarily, they may have to make a higher amount of contributions to receive the same FS scheme.
Agreed, but the increase in contributions required to provide the equivalent benefits will be so large that they will be unaffordable, hence the schemes will effectively be colsed anyway!sidicks said:
JagLover said:
Not necessarily, they may have to make a higher amount of contributions to receive the same FS scheme.
Agreed, but the increase in contributions required to provide the equivalent benefits will be so large that they will be unaffordable, hence the schemes will effectively be colsed anyway!Sticks. said:
sidicks said:
JagLover said:
Not necessarily, they may have to make a higher amount of contributions to receive the same FS scheme.
Agreed, but the increase in contributions required to provide the equivalent benefits will be so large that they will be unaffordable, hence the schemes will effectively be colsed anyway!JagLover said:
Sticks. said:
sidicks said:
JagLover said:
Not necessarily, they may have to make a higher amount of contributions to receive the same FS scheme.
Agreed, but the increase in contributions required to provide the equivalent benefits will be so large that they will be unaffordable, hence the schemes will effectively be colsed anyway!
But why is it that high-flyer civil servants get more £ for £ of contribution than the average civil servant? Which is what he said, I believe.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff