Public Sector Pay

[quisquose]

in relation to your answer (and no insult was intended or given) and your orginal post, you seem to have not accepted that the NHS and other public sector schemes cannot be directly compared to "private pension pot" systems where as you say £500k or more might be needed.

taxation levied annually is taken into account and the schemes do not need any magic figure pot to fund them, its built into taxation and budgetary spending.

 

there is plenty of evidence to show that the public sector pensions are manageable longer term, and can be funded, and yes the people probably do need to up their contributions.

The only evidence I have read about public sector pensions being manageable has come from union literature.

 

I see no reason not to use real world annuity rates when comparing public sector and private sector deals.

 

An £11k income from 60 would require a fund of £200k, add to this the benefits of a lump sum and survivor pension and you will understand where my £250k comes from.

 

This is what somebody in the private sector needs to save to get an equivalent income of £11k, and needs to be taken into account when comparing salaries.

 

the £24k pa pension that you mentioned for part time work (in either the pre 2008 scheme or the newer scheme) is still based on a final salary, not career average, and therefore by default your wife must be earning at least 48k per annum part time in the 2 schemes regardless of retirement age. which then begged the comment i made earlier about it being nice work if you can get it.

 

The pensionable salary is based on the full time salary, not pro-rata.

 

The years of service is reduced pro-rata for the part-time element. Even if my wife remains part-time until retirement, she will have more than 35 years service at 65.

[ChrisT70]

The only evidence I have read about public sector pensions being manageable has come from union literature.

 

I see no reason not to use real world annuity rates when comparing public sector and private sector deals.

 

An £11k income from 60 would require a fund of £200k, add to this the benefits of a lump sum and survivor pension and you will understand where my £250k comes from.

 

This is what somebody in the private sector needs to save to get an equivalent income of £11k, and needs to be taken into account when comparing salaries.

 

 

 

The pensionable salary is based on the full time salary, not pro-rata.

 

The years of service is reduced pro-rata for the part-time element. Even if my wife remains part-time until retirement, she will have more than 35 years service at 65.

 

we'll have to disagree about annuity rates then and pension pots. one of the local govt schemes is funded and wont be in deficit, but is still being targetted by the condems. with a suitable rise in contributions there would be no need to change the scheme, and it doesnt need comparison to any annuity.

there is real evidence that if properly managed most of the schemes will be affordable, my suggestion on a cap for the very high earners would assist this.

your original post as such appeared to suggest a £24k pension payable for working part time, wasnt clear you meant pro rata, hence my enquiry.

 

to solve these issues the govt should be investigating properly funded private schemes that are of good quality and benefit, and making them work, not slashing at hacking at the public sector to bring them down to nothing.

that smacks of pure revenge imho on the public sector for having enjoyed a good last few years under labour, now its their time to pay the price, a long held ambition of all tory parties through history.

[Guest sibon]

The only evidence I have read about public sector pensions being manageable has come from union literature.

 

I see no reason not to use real world annuity rates when comparing public sector and private sector deals.

 

 

 

The PAC seems to think that more information is needed about public sector pensions, but they are certainly more affordable today than they were five years ago. Which asks a very big question about the Government's motivation.

 

As for using annuities, they are not the only way to fund a pension. Five people paying £200 per month into a pension pot will fund an £11K pension, with a bit to spare. That is what happens in the "imaginary" world of teachers, police, nurses, doctors etc. Meanwhile those in the real world, hidebound by management fees and poor investments, need a quarter of a million quid on the stockmarket to achieve the same as five coppers.

 

Food for thought, maybe.

[Mecky]

Politicians and the media are just trying to scaremonger people into believing what they are told, which would certainly make their job a lot easier. I just LOL at some of the inane rubbish they come out with.

 

That’s the best accuse yet for Labour’s mismanagement of the UK economy:hihi:

 

But you haven't answered the question of what you beloved Tory Bullyboys would have done if they were in government back in 2008.

[Mr Prime]

Politicians and the media are just trying to scaremonger people into believing what they are told, which would certainly make their job a lot easier. I just LOL at some of the inane rubbish they come out with.

 

 

 

But you haven't answered the question of what you beloved Tory Bullyboys would have done if they were in government back in 2008.

 

He never does, Tory spouters seem to believe that had the Tories been in power they would have had a totally different strategy towards their chums in the city. Not that any details are ever provided of course.

[andikay]

Politicians and the media are just trying to scaremonger people into believing what they are told, which would certainly make their job a lot easier. I just LOL at some of the inane rubbish they come out with.

 

 

 

But you haven't answered the question of what you beloved Tory Bullyboys would have done if they were in government back in 2008.

 

He never does, Tory spouters seem to believe that had the Tories been in power they would have had a totally different strategy towards their chums in the city. Not that any details are ever provided of course.

 

I live in this reality and have no intention of speculating about events that may have happened differently in an alternative reality, but if as you say the Conservatives would have done everything the same as Labour over the past 13 years and we would still be in the same mess, then as the two parties do the same we would have the same cuts if Labour was still in power.

 

I prefer to look at the facts of this reality and Gordon Brown ignored good advice and messed up.

[L00b]

As for using annuities, they are not the only way to fund a pension. Five people paying £200 per month into a pension pot will fund an £11K pension, with a bit to spare.

So which 25 are going to fund the £11k pensions of those five people when they retire, when the Gvt is cutting down public sector staffing levels?

 

There is never any equilibrium in pyramid schemes, you know

[Guest sibon]

So which 25 are going to fund the £11k pensions of those five people when they retire, when the Gvt is cutting down public sector staffing levels?

 

There is never any equilibrium in pyramid schemes, you know

 

They might not all retire at the same time, you know.

 

Indeed, there is no equilibrium in pyramid schemes, but these are not pyramid schemes. More mutual, than pyramid.

 

If they really are unsustainable, surely the Government would have produced the evidence by now. After all, the unions have asked for it and the PAC have asked for it. Any guesses why the Government won't publish the evidence?

[Mr Prime]

I live in this reality and have no intention of speculating about events that may have happened differently in an alternative reality, but if as you say the Conservatives would have done everything the same as Labour over the past 13 years and we would still be in the same mess, then as the two parties do the same we would have the same cuts if Labour was still in power.

 

I prefer to look at the facts of this reality and Gordon Brown ignored good advice and messed up.

 

The FACT of the matter is Labours cuts are 80% of the Tory cuts, and that's from a Tory MP's mouth. They would have been implemented at a slower rate. Tory politicians who have never done any work that involves actual work can make cuts easily as they have little in the way of empathy.

 

With regards to the theoretical framework you know perfectly well that if Blair had taken measures to get a grip on the city then he would have been castigated by your friends at The Telegraph, Mail and Sun as an evil interfering socialist. You would have agreed with them too. The word hypocrisy doesn't even cover it.

[L00b]

They might not all retire at the same time, you know.

Naturally.

 

However, considering the scale of the public sector (1/5th of the UK workforce, last stat I saw), the disparate setup/legacy of pension arrangements in both same and different branches of the public sector, even with the best will in the world it cannot be an easy thing to plan pension sustenance (per your model) based on staffing levels.

 

Moreover, it goes some way to explain the difference in funding level requirement between private sector "pots" (only the 'potted' funds pay for the pension, nothing/noone else does) and public sector "IOUs" (current and 'replacement' public service workers will pay for the pension).