Guest sibon Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Whilst MPs are scything their way through the pension rights of Nurses, Teachers, Firemen and Soldiers, they might like to look in their own backyard. The Parliamentary Pension Scheme looks in dire need of reform to me. Massive benefits. A huge subsidy from the Exchequer and £50m in the red. Does anyone know whether it was part of the Hutton report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just a bloke Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Hmmmm .... how many guesses do I get? Not a bad deficit for a fund with less than 1700 members ( and not all contributing if I have read it right) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxydebs Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 From what they were saying on the news, teachers will retire on a pension of £21 000. I wish I got that a year now,never mind as a pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 From what they were saying on the news, teachers will retire on a pension of £21 000. I wish I got that a year now,never mind as a pension. They won't. Or at least virtually none of them will. The majority of teacher's pensions are under £10 000. You always have the option of training to be a teacher you know:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Does anyone know whether it was part of the Hutton report? It absolutely was not. His interim report and his interview this morning stated as much .... Now I wonder why he wasn't looking at MP's? http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pensionscommission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11446834 well worth a read thro, gives the actual facts about all public sector pension schemes. teachers scheme is good but doesnt give them all 21k a yr. firefighters scheme is better, being based around a younger age, but then again who wants a 65yr olf fireman pushing his zimmer frame along to your house fire! army (officers) appear to get a very nice package at an early age, much better than the soldiers (unfair imho), all being non contributory as well. civil service scheme looks to be a cracker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Have you seen what the judiciary get? They're in the top 0.01% of the scheme ...... Which appears to be propped up by the workers. I believe that the current thinking is that "Da Gubment" are currently soiling their drawers at the thought of all these civil servants transferring their funds out of the scheme leaving it as stable as Peter Sutcliffe in Soho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Have you seen what the judiciary get? They're in the top 0.01% of the scheme ...... Which appears to be propped up by the workers. I believe that the current thinking is that "Da Gubment" are currently soiling their drawers at the thought of all these civil servants transferring their funds out of the scheme leaving it as stable as Peter Sutcliffe in Soho. some of the schemes do appear to need change, some people get 2/3 final pay at 30yrs etc, whereas some only 1/2 pay after 40yrs paying in, some people can go at 50, some at 55, some at 60, all the new schemes are at 65. some schemes are even non contributory, which cant be feasible. some contributions are much higher than other schemes. i dont agree tho that people who have paid in for many years should be impacted, and the Hutton report does at least acknowledge that by the look of it, with previous accruals being protected. wonder what will happen, can see massive strikes over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 ...army (officers) appear to get a very nice package at an early age, much better than the soldiers (unfair imho), all being non contributory as well. civil service scheme looks to be a cracker. Forces pensions are now paid at age 55. Non contributory? - So, when the 'military salary' was introduced in 1970, why did the MOD say that my (real) pay had been reduced by the 9% they had deducted from the gross to reflect my contribution to the pension scheme? Can you quantify the difference between the pension of an enlisted man and that of an officer? - Both are based on final salary and the number of years served. Officers have an Optional Retirement point at age 38 or after 16 years service after the age of 21. (Whichever is the later.) That retirement point was set by the government to allow them to reduce the force. The argument was (when I was in the Air Force) 'We don't want a glut of over-40 year old personnel blocking the way for younger people. If we retire you at age 38, you have a chance of re-qualifying and getting a decent job before you are 40'. (Which was deemed as being the age at which your employment prospects were likely to fall considerably.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 some of the schemes do appear to need change, some people get 2/3 final pay at 30yrs etc, whereas some only 1/2 pay after 40yrs paying in, some people can go at 50, some at 55, some at 60, all the new schemes are at 65. some schemes are even non contributory, which cant be feasible. some contributions are much higher than other schemes. i dont agree tho that people who have paid in for many years should be impacted, and the Hutton report does at least acknowledge that by the look of it, with previous accruals being protected. wonder what will happen, can see massive strikes over this. You make a good point about the protection of previous accruals. I'm somewhat closer to my Teacher's Pension than I am to graduating:) I really don't have time to make alternative provision. Actually, I did make provision some years ago, but only because I intend to retire early. As for strikes. The Headteachers are absolutely up in arms and will be in the vanguard of any strike action. The ATL are also balloting (ATL are the most moderate Union imaginable. I can't remember them ever striking.) Oddly, NUT and NASUWT are still undecided about action. Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.