Forum menu
allthepies - because they don't want to be seen to be sticking up for the public sector as the tory press have so successfully convinced everyone that the pensions need reforming. Same as they convinced everyone that massive public sector cuts are needed and labour were so weak they got into a competition with the tories to see who could pledge the biggest cuts
weak and ineffective labour party
it willl on be a so called general strike amongst those paid by the taxpayer ,
Funny you mention that. I was going to ask my (NHS) employer what this large lump, labelled PAYE and Pension, which is deducted from my salary every month, is actually for.
I work for one of the quangos and our pension is self funding yet it still gets called into question when public sector pension get looked into. And the way I can see retirement age going I think i'd be getting death in service before my pension.
I thought Dave and his mates are there to help me ? Government elected by the people to run things for the benefit of ALL the people. You know like the police force.....paid for by the people to police the people ? next step a greed free world 😉
headfirst - Member
A reminder:PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS ARE TAXPAYERS TOO.
So essentially we contribute twice over to our pensions.
Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post
So follow the rules that the rest of work by or look for a new job, we could do a swop.
I very mnuch doubt you have the skills or would take the massive paycut.
headfirst... explain how you pay twice ? no beef,just curious 😀
Tj I have just reported your comment, you have absolutely no idea what skills I have or what I earn.
Edit: see apology below.
Genuine LOL @ headfirst
Err you forget your place youngman TJ is always correct about everything, isn't he ?
You pay towards pub sector pensions thru your taxes, no? EWell guess what so do I. Then I have a pension contribution to make as well.
Nope, just two people, who often seem to have diametrically-opposed views on STW agreeing. Must mean we're serious!
Wondering which one of us is having an epiphany 😉
I work for one of the quangos and our pension is self funding yet it still gets called into question when public sector pension get looked into
true that. there is not one large scheme for all public sector workers. there are many - with similar benefits with their own discrete pots to fund them. Even those that are self funding - ie they have the money to pay are now somehow deemed unaffordable. The issue is just the govt wanting us all to have less
as no one seemed bothered here is the army scheme from the army website - much better pension than teachers yet no mention of this being unaffordable ....odd that isn't it
Nobody joins the Army thinking about retirement. But when the time comes, the Army's pension scheme will be there to support you. [b]Most civilians either have to pay into a private pension fund, or contribute from their salary into a company scheme to ensure they have something to live on when they retire. But in the Army you are entitled to monthly payments based on your final salary, without having to contribute to your pension at all[/b].
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65. And if you serve for 12 years you'll be entitled to a tax-free resettlement grant on retirement too. Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension and tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army, and a second lump sum when they turn 65.
Tj, in my ire I may have misunderstood...oops. I'm sorry!
I see, sorry for being a bit thick. I also pay towards a public sector pension via my taxes and I pay into a private self funded pension also as I like to cover my options. Does that make us equal ?
headfirst - Member
Tj, in my ire I may have misunderstood...oops. I'm sorry!Posted 21 seconds ago # Report-Post
NEVER EVER APOLOGISE to TJ, hes not used to it,
headfirst
By the sounds of it you seem oblivious to the fact that public sector workers also pay pension contributions. It is the private sector where some companies provide non-contribu[b]tory[/b] pensions but like the public sector, it is in the terms and conditions and forms part of the decision as to whether the job package is attractive.
Project: those rules being: my employer is doing me the honour of allowing me to work for them so I will let then do what the hell they like to me.
No thanks.
Woody I'm in the public sector
Junkyard
Interesting point re the army pension. On of the guys I work with (who is 10 years younger than me) receives a services pension now which is more than I will get when I retire in 15 years time. He is also 10 years younger than me.
Nice if you can get it!
headfirst - aplologies, got my wires crossed from skimming others quotations 😳
Watch the mass exit over the next 8 years especially in the final few and particularly Women from the NHS and other public sector. They're going to have to fill these some how which means employing more staff which of course costs more in training.
There's loads of ex-service Bods Woody, quite a few have left the last year or two and come back part time now running on 2 pensions plus a part-time job.
YUP - and PTS seems to get a high % of ex police and Prison service too. You would need a pension to survive on the wages they pay 😉
Aye that's true they do, although bank PTS has attracted some ex-A+E staff back some of who "Had enough of these lot and I'll never be back" of course I don't remind them of these words. 😈
Can't blame them if they are still fit enough to work. I certainly don't want to be carrying 20 stone munters down stairs at 65.....................although I seem to have nicely side-stepped that one at the moment 😉
its interesting that the only peole we dont seem to target are those currently/about to retire. They are the ones who will get out vastly more than they have paid in , have ridden the post war boom and tbh [many] are not very poor or even close to it - my parents have more income than me and no mortgage and spend 6 mths abroad in their expensive motorhome. Everywhere we go they getin for less than I do [ i amnot saying some pensioners are not poor but lets not pretend that some are also very well off/comfortable indeed]
We ignore these in all this unaffordable notion but they are the ones who have not paid enough to cover their payments. We will be paying for our pension and theirs meaning we will pay more to get less than them. this seems unfair so why not have a pop at those who have benfitted most from this?
When I leave that'll be it, I've done almost 22 years now and just another 28 to go I think that's enough.
wrightyson - MemberWant to be thankful they've got jobs!!
😀 I love comments like that !
And it is precisely the attitude which the Tories, historically the party of high unemployment, want people to have.
Yes, we live in a society which doesn't recognise [i]the right to work.[/i] Employment is seen very much as a [i]privilege[/i] ...... for which we should be grateful.
Yet strangely enough those who see work as a [i]privilege[/i] rather than a [i]right[/i], are invariably also the first to slag off people for being unemployed......they can't seem to make their minds up.
Of course blaming the unemployed for the high levels of unemployment caused by government policies, is a very old Tory trick.
when that happens will we able to tell people they are ****s then? 😀When I leave that'll be it, I've done almost 22 years now and just another 28 to go I think that's enough.
Junkyard
Don't forget that your parents (and mine too as it happens) will be paying tax* on those pensions, so the government still gets some back.
*unless they manage to spend so much time out of the country that they are not liable, of course
yes they pay tax but that does not negate the fact the big issue is they paid in less than required to get their entire pension entitlement [ assuming they live an average length obviously] and we have to pay cover this and get less for ours. I am still not sure why that is fair.
] Can I not get a better pension and leave my kids to pay for it just like they did? We are resolving this issue by penalising us rather than them. Why?
Can we not share the pain equally? After all they cant strike can they 😉
When I mention this to them they just laugh and mock they really dont care as they are on to a winner
Junkyard - what makes you think that [b]they[/b] paid in too little?
Increased longevity and reduced yield on investments both mean we need to invest more in our pensions. Its not necessarily down to underpayments from previous members of any particular scheme.
Can I not get a better pension and leave my kids to pay for it just like they did? We are resolving this issue by penalising us rather than them. Why?
That would require cross party agreement, a cohesive long term plan and a crystal ball. All administered by a bunch of self-serving politicians who's response would make your parents look like amateur mockers
project - Memberit willl on be a so called general strike amongst those paid by the taxpayer , thats us and them, and them want us to pay more for thems pensions that us also pay for now, while us also pay for our own.
With logic like that, it's a wonder that you can type at all.
When you consider a job, you look at teh whole remuneration package. Traditionally this was:
Private sector: Higher wages, performance based bonus, lower job security, lower or no employer contributions to pensions.
Public sector: Lower wages, no bonus (apart from possibly quango execs), higher job security, higher employer contributions to pensions.
Now it's more like:
Public sector: Low wages, no job security, and reduced pensions for more input.
It really isn't rocket science. The private sector business model has always been high up front benefits to attract staff, whereas public sector was more less now, but you should get some repayment later in life.
£500K would buy an index linked annuity of approx £15,000 per annum for someone retiring at 60, so the MP was right. But that doesn't mean that the other figures are wrong, as the [u]average[/u] pension paid will include many former staff who don't have a full period of service so will not have a full pension. They might of course have other pensions from other employers though.
Private sector pensions have been mishandled for decades now. Pension holidays in the 90s saved [b]employers[/b] around £18 billion (according to the Inland Revenue) while the employees where still paying the same contributions they always had. The stockmarket appeared to be able to make up for the lack of employer's contributions.
Strangely enough during this period companies reported huge profits - because they weren't paying pension contributions. Fund managers still got their fees, the savings were passed to shareholders and the pensions went from surplus to deficit:
Unilever, the maker of Wall's ice cream and Persil enjoyed seven years of pension holidays. It not only saved millions of pounds but in 1999 also swiped the fund's £270m "surplus", adding it to Unilever's profits. Since 1992 it has stripped £1.2bn from its fund and about two thirds, £726m, was handed back to shareholders in the form of higher profits and bigger dividends. Bitter? Unilever pensioners certainly are. They have run a long-term campaign for the money to be used to boost their pensions rather than directors' salaries, but without success.
*Unilever did let their employees take pension holidays as well but that didn't help matters in the longterm.
It's another case of the private sector rewarding failure to plan ahead and build sustainable businesses, pure greed. The tories are using the public sector as a whipping boy for the failures of the private sector. And they're the ones that started it:
"The Tories have got a lot to apologise for." That is the view of Mervyn Kohler, head of public affairs at the charity Help the Aged.Like many organisations, it believes the previous Conservative government dealt generations of older people a serious blow when, in 1980, it scrapped the link between the state pension and earnings.
...
Kohler also criticised the Tories for allowing people to opt out of occupational pension schemes in the 1980s. Apart from the damage caused to occupational schemes, the Conservative government also offered millions of people what were dubbed "bribes" of thousands of pounds each to contract out of Serps, the top-up state pension.
Figures and quotes taken from [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2004/jul/10/pensions.jobsandmoney ]Here[/url]
[i]I work for one of the quangos and our pension is self funding yet it still gets called into question when public sector pension get looked into.[/i]
All that means is that your budget pays for it, and your budget is paid for by the taxpayer... But surely the only way its 'self-funding' is if its a money-purchase scheme?
And Pension Holidays were something really that business did in response to Govt changes - and back again...
That's talking about ending pension holidays due to changes.
And they're the ones that started it:
And then Gordon Brown stepped in.
The Labour party aren't moaning because they have tried on several occasions to reform public sector pensions and retirement ages, but have always ended up folding.
It's pretty simple - Unions a) give a lot of funding to the Labour party and b) have voting rights. This makes it extremely difficult for them to tackle the issue. Labour know (but don't publicly say) that some kind of public sector pension reform is needed, and it might as well be someone else getting the blame for it.
because they don't want to be seen to be sticking up for the public sector as the tory press have so successfully convinced everyone that the pensions need reforming.
😆 Or that.
And then Gordon Brown stepped in.
Yes, just carrying on where the real tories left off, but this is what happens when you let tory style politicians run the country since 1979.
As I said pensions have been mishandled for decades.
In both cases BDO assumed that the pair's salaries would rise by 5 per cent per year and that they would pay 4 per cent of their wages into a pension fund. It was also assumed that the stock market would continue to rise in line with historic trends and that shares would pay a typical 3 per cent dividend yield. Bonds were expected to continue to pay an interest yield of around 4 per cent.
LOLZ
All that means is that your budget pays for it, and your budget is paid for by the taxpayer... But surely the only way its 'self-funding' is if its a money-purchase scheme?
Not in the slightest. Many quangos, whilst 'backed' by the government, bid competitively for money. No money = no jobs (and no pension).
I just wonder at the comments regarding 'us and them' where 'us' the private sector workers are thinking they are really hard done by, and they are looking over the fence to see 'them' the public sector workers allegedly basking in Gold Plated pensions and excellent terms and conditions. If that was really the case why didn't they join the public sector when there were vacancies?? and do you REALLY think that once this Government has slashed the Pensions, wages and terms and conditions of Public Sector workers they will reduce the Income Tax for the ordinary tax payer, if you do then you are a fool. Stop being taken in by the propaganda machine and give the Public Sector workers the credit and pay/pensions they deserve.
I dunno about all that - I was just wondering how [s]we[/s] I was going to get to work if the rail network shut down...
Rail isn't in the public sector...