Viewing 40 posts - 201 through 240 (of 254 total)
  • Public Sector and their pensions
  • TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    No clubber – you appear to be actually listening and thinking about the issues -a rare thing on here. I disagree with some of your conclusions but thats OK

    clubber
    Free Member

    Phew. Wouldn’t want to be slurred with lazy rightwinger stereotypes… 😉

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    TJ – not going to argue you’re right or wrong, but I have been a public sector pension trustee. I do however have a question:

    As the variables governing pensions assets and liabilities change pretty much daily, you’re asking taxpayers to insulate you against that risk. Fair enough, it is a viewpoint, but rather than argue about entitlements, how would you go about persuading the large body of private (or no) pension holders and taxpayers that they should take your risk as well as their own?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    oldbloke – again you are looking at this as tho it was an investment fund – it is not. (NHS) there is no “risk” associated with it as there is no investment fund that can go up and down.

    Its a far smaller amount of money involved that the amount of subsidy given to the very rich in tax relief on their pensions.

    Its a contractual entitlement.

    basic fairness – we took lower salaries in anticipation of having decent pensions

    There is no cash saving as all the reduced pensions will mean is that a greater sum of benefits will have to be paid out

    tahts a few reasons

    mefty
    Free Member

    there is no “risk”

    There is, it is known as longevity risk or in plain words the risk that the pensioners live longer than anticipated when the contributions were set.

    MrBlond
    Free Member

    mefty beat me to it…

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    I was very specific in referring to liabilities. It doesn’t matter if a scheme is funded or not, it still looks at its liabilities and if it thought that on average it was going to have to pay a pension for an average of 10 years but now thinks that is going to be 15 years it looks at how to deal with that shortfall. That’s risk and is the biggest risk in pensions management – life expectancy – and that’s what you’re asking taxpayers to cover.

    So, again, how would you ask them? Given your contributions on other threads where you’ve pointed out the small % of higher rate taxpayers, your point on the rich is somewhat diversionary as you’re speaking mostly to basic rate payers. Go on, sell them the deal.

    As a former FD of a public sector body, I have to disagree on the salaries point being universal (although valid where there is a differnce) – plenty of salaries at or close to the private sector where I was. But, even where different, the pensions benefit far outstripped the salary shortcomings.

    allthepies
    Free Member

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    TJ – you’re being disingenuous again regards there being no “fund” – Calculations on the affordability of the pension scheme are made on four yearly Actuarial reports. Which are based on the use of a ‘notional fund’ as if all income from the start of the NHS Pension Scheme had been invested.

    And before you tell me I’m talking rubbish, I’ll be glad to point you towards the NHSBSA report that confirms it 😉

    julianwilson
    Free Member

    richmars – Member

    Julianwilson,
    I have worked as an engineer in modern hi tech companies for about 30 years. I have had a number of fairly senior positions, not one had a company car, or gym membership. I’ve been to a few trade shows, but I don’t think the NEC is much of a perk. This is not unusual in the private sector.
    Do you really believe everyone has free cars? Obviously some jobs have cars and perks, but I’m sure the vast majority don’t.
    Edit: And I had a 25% pay cut last year, just to keep the company afloat.

    Richmars, (I have reread my post here and I don’t want iot to sound like a ‘my job’s harder than yours for the money’ willy-waving contest but I fear it will anyway 🙁 )

    …my badly-made point was that the public sector pension is seen by most who pay into it as mitigating against a lower salary relative to qualifications, experience, responsibility and stress. Much like some folk see a company car as being ‘worth’ some of their pay which they would otherwise spend on a private car.

    You do I am sure get paid according to the complexity, stress and risk of your job as well as the qualifications and experience required for it. My brother in law is the same age as me and has been in his field the same length of time I have. He is a degree qualified engineer of the ‘sony wall of lcd screens’ wierdy electronic type. His job is complex and would require a very bright graduate in engineering to understand the finer points. He works 40 hours a week and usually gets flexi if he stays late to get a project in. If you substitute ‘twiddly electronics’ for ‘immensely fragile psyche of the abused teenager’ we are so far quite equal on complexity, qualifications, years of service/experience and ‘baffling people that ask you too many questions about what you do’.

    On the other hand, unlike my job, he has no professional registration to consider, no risk that someone will die on his watch and under his direct (or even indirect) responsibility, no risk of him losing his registration through his acts or omissions and unless he loses his rag and stabs a colleague, no risk of actual criminal proceedings through his acts or omissions. Like you he doesn’t have a company car yet he earns £13k a year more than me. The ‘stress and risks/perils’ of my job are all also present for the overwhelming majority of police officers, radigraphers, nurses, social workers, soldiers (minus the professional registration bit) and teachers (minus the death but very much including the ‘criminal proceedings’ bit) amongst others.

    Richmars, I expect you are were paid commensurate to your qualification, skills and experience as well as stress it causes you and the risk of you geting it in the neck for it all going terribly wrong (I appreciate that ‘terribly wrong’ in engineering could be any point on a very broad spectrum from mild peril through to huge tragedy depending on what it is you engineer, but the greater the risk to the public or responsibility for this risk, the more that is reflected in your salary, much like in my work).

    If your actual job or a similar one exists within public service, (as opposed to being contracted at great expense to the taxpayer to provide a service or product for a public body!) it is almost certainly paid significantly less than the job you are in now, at least before you accepted a 25% pay cut 🙁 . In the NHS this is the complaint of our own engineers, occupational therapists, psychologists, PA’s, payroll and IT staff to throw out a few examples, who routinely see very similar or identical roles to their own advertised in the private sectormminus our spanky nice pension but at at attractively higher salaries.

    Bottom line: The pension is was one reason to stay with the lower pay.

    clubber
    Free Member

    With all due respect, some jobs just pay more than others so you haven’t really given a very good example. I’m not poor by a long stretch (TJ would say I was minted 🙂 ) but typically lawyers earn lots more than me for the same amount of work, risk and experience.

    Incidentally one other point to consider is that the salaries that are advertised are often quite different to what people actually earn but people only ever see the top figure thus distorting their view of what salaries are actually available elsewhere.

    Engineer in private sector, salary up to £40k

    Really means

    we’ll pay £40k in exceptional circumstances but will far more likely pay £30-£35k particularly in the current economic climate.

    We come up against that in the private sector too with employees claiming that they could earn more elsewhere but when you compare actual salaries paid, it tells a different story.

    DT78
    Free Member

    Personally I think anyone earning over £42k a year shouldn’t get tax breaks on pensions as they are in the super elite rich top 10% of the country.

    br
    Free Member

    Personally I think anyone earning over £42k a year shouldn’t get tax breaks on pensions as they are in the super elite rich top 10% of the country.

    you forgot the 😉

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    So all of those who are complaining about possibly in the future having to pay small sums to top up the pensions of the public sector going to also be happy to loose the much larger subsidy to the private sector pensions of tax breaks?

    Tax breaks on pensions for the richest few are 2-3 times as much per year as the potential shortfall on public sector pensions. Tax breaks for all private pensions are much much more than this

    so – end tax breaks on private pensions completely?

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Tax breaks on pensions for the richest few are 2-3 times as much per year as the potential shortfall on public sector pensions

    Figures to support this claim please.

    clubber
    Free Member

    you could make that argument but since there’s no liability issue with a tax break, what’s the relevance to this other than a lazy attempt to make emotive point scoring comments?

    br
    Free Member

    Quite interesting to see TJ happy that his new collegues are getting a worse deal, from now, than he will get

    Did I miss TJ’s answer on this?

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    TJ – love the way you ignore the bits you don’t like.

    Forget the “richest few” and other such generalisations. Provide information on the benefits from the scheme you object to having imposed on you vs those from a money purchase scheme with the same employee contribution and the rates employers are about to have to provide under the latest Pensions Act.

    Then we can debate the specific merits of your complaint and it may help you articulate why taxpayers should cover your risk.

    Talking tax breaks is again a distraction from your desire to have others cover your risk, but to answer your point: Remove the tax incentive and you remove the merit of a pension plan.

    donsimon
    Free Member

    In conclusion?

    jota180
    Free Member

    TJ – this is a lifestyle choice for you, you don’t need to work in the public sector

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    clubber – Member

    you could make that argument but since there’s no liability issue with a tax break, what’s the relevance to this other than a lazy attempt to make emotive point scoring comments?

    It shows the massive hypocrisy

    It cost the government 10 billion a year to give tax breaks on the pension funds of people earning over £150 000 pa but would only cost 4 billion a year to meet all the projected shortfall in all public sector pension funds.

    It puts it in perspective

    so I ask again – those of you that think public sector workers should loose their modest pensions do you support an end to tax relief on private pensions?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Remove the tax incentive and you remove the merit of a pension plan.

    Same applies – make public sector pensions worthless and there is no incentive to be in them

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    It cost the government 10 billion a year to give tax breaks on the pension funds of people earning over £150 000 pa but would only cost 4 billion a year to meet all the projected shortfall in all public sector pension funds.

    According to the Guardian, here, removing tax relief on earnings over 150k would only bring in 840 million a year.

    Quite a significant shortfall compared with your claim of Ten Billion, isn’t it TJ?

    However its nice to see you finally conceding there is a projected shortfall in public sector pensions of *four thousand million pounds* a year, most people would think thats a problem, the type of thing you might want to tackle.

    I also think its an interesting psychology to say that If the government does not take something off you thats rightfully yours, then they’re giving you a break – next time someone breaks into your house and steals the telly, you should maybe thank them for giving you the DVD player…

    toys19
    Free Member

    Umm to quote myself frrom another thread

    Boys, just remember TJ isn’t an engineer or a scientist, he is a nurse. So stop getting your knickers in a twist every time he says something. What TJ says is not actually a fact, set in stone or golden, it’s most likely poorly informed bullshit. So the simple solution is to just ignore or dismiss him and not to pander to his ego by getting caught up in one of his pedantic argue fests.

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    But there is – the employer covers so much more of the risk in a public scheme that you gain that benefit. The benefit of a public sector pension is not dependent on the tax status of employee contributions – it is in its expression in terms of pension payment

    If a money purchase scheme delivers nothing through a market collapse just as you price the annuity, there’s no fallback.

    clubber
    Free Member

    of course there’s hypocrisy. same as big companies avoiding huge amounts of tax while the relatively small value of welfare cheats is hyped.

    But that’s not the point being discussed and you’re just diverting because you seem to be unable to justify your statements about the self-sustainability of the NHS pension.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    No oldgit -there is no risk – a risk is unforeseen. Nothing here is,

    clubber – I accept that there is a possibility that the NHS pension scheme may need a small amount of government support. I do not think this is unreasonable given the billions that have been taken out of the scheme by governments and given that the scheme has already been altered to reduce liabilities to a sustainable level.

    Reducing pensions further will not produce savings as people will become eligible for benefits as well

    I merely point out that even including the worse performing pension schemes the subsidy required is far less that the amount of subsidy given to a very small amount of rich people for their pensions.

    so yoiu want to remove a 4 billion a year subsidy from millions of people an leave a ten billion subsidy for a much smaller grump of people who are much better off.

    The teachers pension scheme has contributed 46 billion to the exchequer more than it has taken out for example

    From the poor to the rich.

    The government even has admitted that these extra contributions will only be used to pay off deficit – they are intending to get 2.8 billion a year in extra contributions to use to pay off the deficit.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member

    “Remove the tax incentive and you remove the merit of a pension plan.”

    Same applies – make public sector pensions worthless and there is no incentive to be in them

    Which is of course the aim here – make the pensions so unattractive that people opt out then the schemes collapse

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    so yoiu want to remove a 4 billion a year subsidy from millions of people an leave a ten billion subsidy for a much smaller grump of people who are much better off.

    The guardian has already shot down your ten billion figure TJ

    I see you’re still avoiding backing up any of your claims with figures…

    clubber
    Free Member

    so we’re back to you needing to provide figures for the claimed big surpluses taken by the state and the claimed small subsidy required in the future.

    clubber
    Free Member

    ooh and I have no issue with reviewing pension tax breaks for the seriously rich but once again it has zero relevance to this discussion so stop diverting.

    julianwilson
    Free Member

    clubber – Member

    With all due respect, some jobs just pay more than others so you haven’t really given a very good example.

    Read the whole post clubber:

    If your actual job or a similar one exists within public service, (as opposed to being contracted at great expense to the taxpayer to provide a service or product for a public body!) it is almost certainly paid significantly less than the job you are in now, at least before you accepted a 25% pay cut . In the NHS this is the complaint of our own engineers, occupational therapists, psychologists, PA’s, payroll and IT staff to throw out a few examples[/b], who routinely see very similar or identical roles to their own advertised in the private sector mminus our spanky nice pension but at at attractively higher salaries.

    If a car was important to you, you might consider a job that paid a little bit less than other similar ones, but provided you with one for your personal use. A pension is important to some people and they have accepted lower wages in light of a great pension. Take away your company car and you might expect a bit back from your employer. Public servants are having their wages frozen cut relative to inflation for three years and now the government wants to charge them for the ‘company car’ too. Give me back my £3k that I have lost in wage freezes and I might feel a bit better about putting some of it into my pension.

    HTH.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    clubber – sources given in earlier posts and plenty out there on google.

    Why does the tax breaks have zero relevance? It shows the massive hypocrisy here. I don’t see any of those calling for cuts in public sector pensions also calling for an end to tax relief on private pensions.

    It really is rather amusing if very sad how much the tory press and tory party have been able to sell the line that public sector pensions are unaffordable.

    Effectively the tories want to put an extra tax on public sector workers of 3% (its tax as it will go directly to the exchequer not into pensions) At the same time here will be a salary freeze. At the same time they want to reduce the pensions payable by a huge amount despite the fact most of the schemes have already been revised to reduce pensions dramatically

    They are happy to spend the surpluses from the pension schemes but not happy to make any shortfall up

    jota180
    Free Member

    you’re confusing need/want with a lifestyle choice here TJ

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    TJ, you may think I’m a git, but it isn’t in the username.

    You’ve been told what the risk is by more than one contributor, so until you’re prepared to acknowledge such significant components of the debate nothing else from you is worthy of consideration.

    I don’t know what teachers pension scheme you’re on about – I know of at least one funded one. Do you mean the Royal Mail scheme which hit the news recently and generated headlines like that? That’s a scheme in deficit no matter what absurd public accounting policies show otherwise.

    Anyway, enough of your diversions. Answer the questions and provide the evidence.

    clubber
    Free Member

    zero relevance to this discussion. Raise a new topic about it and I’ll happily contribute. You’re raising it because you’ve failed here at least to justify a lot of your key claims.

    Disappointing because previously I reckoned you were probably right on self-sustainability but you’ve convinced me otherwise now.

    julianwilson
    Free Member

    Why does the tax breaks have zero relevance? It shows the massive hypocrisy here. I don’t see any of those calling for cuts in public sector pensions also calling for an end to tax relief on private pensions.

    This government like many before it will screw over those that would never vote for them anyway before they start messing with their own supporters. 😕

    Small difference being that plenty of public servants regret having voted lib dem (I include myself here, mind you the Conservative candidate got in as usual in my constituency anyway) and inadvertently giving rise to what amounts to a conservative minority in government acting outside their election manifesto within mere months of the election.

    DT78
    Free Member

    Jota everyone might be ignoring your comments but you made me laugh out loud.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Phew – been away all day celebrating b’day. Thank goodness I haven’t been following all of this instead. TJ, you make some valid points about the folly of the current system and then confuse it by saying it doesn’t need reform – bizarre? Then accuse people of not understanding the basics of NHS and other pension funds when they clearly understand it better than you, fail to grasp that surplus does not equal sustainable and then lose any real credibility with this line:

    TandemJeremy – Member

    Which is of course the aim here – make the pensions so unattractive that people opt out then the schemes collapse

    That is simply absurd and simply obscures any of your valid points. If you really think that the government and its advisers (Hutton etc) have the over-riding strategic objective of seeing then NHS pension scheme (sic) collapse, then there is little if any point in debating the subject.

    Like any pyramid scheme, there is more likelihood of collapse from the basic fact that it is based on shocking foundations than any perceived (or otherwise) political objectives.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Oldbloke – sorry – slip of the keyboard – there is a couple of varieties of oldgits on here and I got you uconfused. No insult intended.

    I do mean the teachers pension fund

    The NUT has calculated the total payments into and from the TPS over the period 1923 to date, using its official valuation reports and accounts. Adjusting these figures in line with GDP growth shows that at least £46.4bn more in current prices has been paid into the TPS in contributions over the years than has been paid out in pensions.

    http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/14349

    NHS is the same – this is why is immoral to do this pensions robbery – a variety of governments has taken surpluses and spent them – now that money could have been used to cover deficits its not there. We have already paid once – now they want us to pay again – and even worse the government has acknowledged the extra payments will not go into pensions but into paying of the government debt

    Teamhurtmore – are you really that naive? Of course the destruction of the public pension schemes is a part off the aim – and people on here even the knowledgeable ones cannot grasp the difference between and investment funded private scheme and a revenue funded government backed scheme.

    No private investor would be allowed to spend the funds!

Viewing 40 posts - 201 through 240 (of 254 total)

The topic ‘Public Sector and their pensions’ is closed to new replies.