People live longer, people want to save the same for their pension, people want to draw the same pension amount.
A woman on R2 last week called in to say that because so many low paid public sector workers live in deprived areas, they have a shorter life expectancy therefore they should be able to retire earlier on a higher pension so they can enjoy their final years 
i blame Blair
A woman on R2 last week called in to say that because so many low paid public sector workers live in deprived areas, they have a shorter life expectancy therefore they should be able to retire earlier on a higher pension so they can enjoy their final years
Give them free cigarettes & booze and a massive pension - sounds like a good idea
Which is interesting, because the official figure for 2009 Average salary of full-time qualified teachers in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector was £36,640
There's an upper pay spine. Progression up this is determined by satisfactory appraisals, one point every two years. This goes up to about £36k.
Has anyone got any grasp of mathematics its pretty simple.People live longer, people want to save the same for their pension, people want to draw the same pension amount.
Can anyone see the BASIC mathematical problem there?
Answers on a postcard please
And a grasp of history will show you that this was considered when the teachers' pensions were reviewed in 2007. At this point, the accrual rate was changed and the lump sum removed.
And a grasp of history will show you that this was considered when the teachers' pensions were reviewed in 2007. At this point, the accrual rate was changed and the lump sum removed.
Ditto the NHS scheme.
Remuneration and pensions is always a difficult issue. One blessing of the whole mess is that at least the captains of industry who were queuing up a few months ago to moan on the radio about the exhorbitant pensions being paid to public servants seem to have shut up since it was revealed that the self same captains of industry have had a 49% average pay rise this year whilst their workers have averaged 2.9% and those of us basking in the luxury of public service have seen at best 0% and in quite a few cases a reduction - and yes I know that also happens in the private sector as well.
Fact remains that currently the contributions to the NHS pension scheme do exceed the payouts by about 2 billion per year, the employers contribution is capped so we stand the risk in the future anyway and most importantly the NHS scheme isn't just about consultants and GPs, nor even about senior managers who do rather well out of it also, but mainly about cleaners, admin staff and chefs who work damn hard over long hours for not much.
The feeling of annoyance well voiced by the OP is prompted by the fact that we agreed to a number of modifications to the scheme only 3 years ago "to make it future proof". This got very little publicity because there was very little fuss about it. Those changes meant longer working lives and higher contributions and are so recent that they won't be in fully in place until 2012. To have the government now portray us and the other public sector workers as somehow trying to protect out of date working practices and gold plated pensions that can no longer be afforded therefore sticks a little in the throat.
The very fact that there is no pension fund as such, means that when the additional contributions have paid off the bankers, bailed our Greek friends out ( and paid the cabinet's pensions which AFAIR are rather better than any of ours ) there is still going to be no more money in the pot to pay my pension in 15 years time than there would have been if I spent my pension contributions on donuts and jellied eels instead - although at least in that case the purveyors of donuts and eels would be saved from penury. I would have more respect for the politicians if they came out and said up front that they were introducing a special higher rate of tax for public employees but I'll be most surprised if they do.
Well I didn't think my post would get quite so many responses, and I must apologise for not chipping in earlier on but I've only just got home from work as there were a few tricky emergency cases that needed my input.
Regarding a couple of points made by others:
1. Of course I realise there's no pot of NHS pension money set aside by the government, and one consequence of that is that the country has had the benefit of being able to use our contributions as just another source of taxation for the treasury. However, although there is no pension fund as such, there is a contractual arrangement which both sides entered into freely and which defines both our contributions and the benefits we will receive. I have honoured my side of the contract.
2. During the boom years prior to 2007 public sector pay rises were by-and-large quite modest when compared to some of the largesse one heard about in the private sector, but we were constantly being reminded by both private sector bosses and ministers that we have our public sector pensions by way of compensation. Well I am incensed that they all seem to have forgotten this principle now that the exchequer are a bit short of cash.
There are some right retarded people on here. Mostly Daily Mail readers who have poster of Maggi on their bedroom walls, and probably pull the head off it to posters of David Cameron.
The reason they are raiding our pensions is because they refuse to tax their rich buddies properly.
Oh and stop moaning about why you poor private sector workers have no pension, pay into one just like us. I pay £200 per month to my pension. And while yo are at it, tell your company to stop paying the directors flecking massive bouses and salaries and just pay the staff a decent pension.
Oh and i will be lucky to get £13,000 a year after 30 years paying in to the scheme.
There are some right retarded people on hear.
Ironing etc....
I work in a company with a (closed to new joiners) final salary (DB or defined benefit) scheme. Everyone new is on a defined contribution scheme (DC).
As a department we are charged an amount for pensions for everyone in our cost centre based on either the employer's contribution to DC, or a share of the company contribution (calculated by reference to the criteria pension would be calculated) for people on the DB scheme.
In terms of pension costs it costs us significantly more for an assistant manager who started before the DB scheme closed to new joiners than it does for a director paid over twice as much who is on a DC scheme. And we have a pretty generous employer contributions to the DC scheme.
The private sector has woken up to this issue already as it actually has to fund future liabilities (if you're a insomniac or have excess will to live Google "IAS19 deficts"), and the public sector is coming round to it as it realises it is basically running a pyramid scheme by spending current "contributions" and hoping future contributions will come good.
Frankly if I have enough for 15 years of half-decent retirement, a single (business class, natch) to Zurich and a trip to Dignitas I'd be doing well.
10, 20, 30+ years is a long time, 30+ years is a very long time and no benefit provider in the current domestic/global economic circumstances is going to guarantee a defined pay out in 10, 20, 30+ years time.
Get a grip and get over it!
The velocity of change has increased significantly over the last 10 ot 20 years and will continue to increase.
My family and I have adjusted to these new austere times and if you do it over a reasonable amount of time then it isn't too bad, you just learn to live within your means and be happy.
Part of my job is to read about "emerging" risks and advise my company about them and this is one that scares the willies out of me.
Oh well, my family and I are fit and healthy today and that is what counts 
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
