But TJ – the teachers pension scheme is currently in deficit – so you’ve shot your own argument about the affordability of the NHS scheme in the foot 😆

a variety of governments has taken surpluses and spent them

Yes, you keep saying this, but keep not backing it up with any figures or evidence that supports your claim of consistent surpluses.

You are doing it again! Of course, no private investor would be allowed to spend the funds. The set-up is flawed and yet you want to defend the status quo. That’s the naive bit IMO. People do recognise the obvious differences between types of fund and they are able to understand where the underlying principles are the same. They also understand the very basic difference between surplus and sustainability.

Governments, that great allocator of scarce resources, have created a fudge primarily to help their accounting. But its sustainable????And then you defend a system that works in favour of the higher paid members of the NHS (final salary, oops BMA vested interest again).. You really have lost me on this one. Unless you are just having an elaborate wind up.

I thought I had a low opionion of politicians but you trump me if you think they are deliberately out to collapse the whole scheme!

TJ – follow that link and try and open the link to the report and you get error 404.

As, by definition, a fund should have more in it than it has paid out, the story lists a completely non relevant measure. All that story says is that previous contributions have covered pensions already paid. It makes no mention of there being enough for the future. Clearly if the link to the full report still worked there might be more to it, but the brief headline is nonsense.

A fund should have enough to pay all its future liabilities for past and current members. Unless it can be stated that on current actuarial valuations, fund + growth + future contributions > liabilities, there’s a problem of deficit and hence affordability.

TJ your logic is seriously flawed.

“This shows that this year the civil service pension scheme will be in deficit by £2.1bn; the teachers pension scheme in deficit by £3bn; the armed forces in deficit by £1.6bn; the judicial pension scheme will be balanced; and the NHS pension scheme will be £1.8bn in profit.”

So you jump on the £1.8bn profit(sic) from the NHS scheme but ignore the following.

“On the NHS scheme the Treasury points out that by 2015-16 the surplus is reduced to £200m and that the reason it is in surplus is that there is a larger number of employees now paying in than there are receiving pensions. But those people paying in will ultimately have to receive a pension and unless the NHS carries on growing it cannot remain in surplus.”

How do you square that circle?

And don’t give me the line that if contributions had been invested all would be OK. Have you seen the state of the funded Local Government Pension Scheme lately?

This still going on? Have you sorted it all yet?

Yes binners, one poster has categorically proven the existence of “confirmation bias”, either that or is a brilliant master of elaborate leg-pulling!

This still going on? Have you sorted it all yet?

all done Binners baby

TJ has made a life choice to stay in the public sector

I think it’s reached its conclusion, for me at least. TJ hasn’t convinced me of his viewpoint and now he’s just throwing accusations around – people don’t understand, they’re unable to think for themselves, etc. while not backing up statements that he’s making.

I think that’ll do me but thanks TJ for taking the time to explain earlier because I do now have a much better understanding of the situation so this thread has actually taught me something and amazingly changed my view on it, just maybe not in the way you intended.

Oldbloke – that would be true if it was an investment funded scheme – however its revenue funded and to date for the teachers 46 billion more has gone into it than has come out. where is this 46 billion? spent by the governments

Same for the NHS – if it had been a ring-fenced investment fund it would have billions in it.

So how can this be morally right? We have paid in far more than has been taken out and the governments have spent that surplus and it then using the fact it has spent the surplus to justify us having to pay more to get less in future.

Whats worse the extra we will pay will not be put into pensions but will be used to reduce the deficit. 2.8 billion a year more.

So how can this be morally right?

How is it morally wrong?
How is this surplus generated?
The 46 billion relates to a total since 1923, no? A percieved abuse by all parties, no?

TJ

i) is the Teachers pension scheme currently in Surplus or Deficit?

ii) You’ve been careful to repeatedly comment out that 46 billion has been paid in… what are the current liabilities?

Same for the NHS – if it had been a ring-fenced investment fund it would have billions in it.

Yes, but not enough billions. That’s why almost all private sector final salary pension schemes, who actually have to account for their future liabilities on a sensible basis, are closed to new entrants or closed altogether. As are the majority of public sector schemes (e.g. post office) that are required to be funded. They are simply too expensive to be sustainable.

Ace, here we are:

The pension schemes liabilities published in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme Annual Accounts 2010-11 (HC 988) are £192,400m.

So – 46 billion in paid in, but liabilities of one hundred and ninety two billion pounds

£192,400,000,000

So, one question answered – can you answer the other one I posed please… is the Teachers pension scheme currently in surplus or deficit?

What i’d like to know is why can private sector teachers pay into the teacher pension scheme?