Public Sector Pay

[Mr Prime]

I'll say what I like.. dude

 

OK, well make it El Duderino in that case (touches rim of baseball cap).

[L00b]

you appear to be saying nobody with a brain would argue that it would happen anyway regardless of who is in power.

Correct

This implies a different party could have blocked it doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

 

It just says what it says, no secondary meaning: whoever was in power in 2008, Labour, Tories, LibDems, UKIP, BNP, the Commies...the recession was always going to happen.

 

It was just a question of how "ready" which countries would be when it hit, i.e. financially exposed or not.

 

Some have shown they were quite ready (Australia, to name one), others have shown they were naked as a first born (Iceland, lately Greece), and there's everything in-between...with China laughing as it's busy buying entire countries in the background.

 

The UK isn't amongst the worst, I'd say it's clear of the "red lanterns", but it's still trailing Germany and possibly also France (until their public sector funding crisis starts to hit...that one's going to be fun to watch ).

 

The point worth discussing (..perhaps..) is whether the UK would have been hit as hard as it has, if another party had been at the helm since 2003 instead of Labour. I.e. would a Tory or LibDem or Coalition Gvt have spent as much of the taxpayer's yet-to-be-earned as Labour did?

 

My guess is no, even if only based on the parties' respective ideologies and historical precedent. Following on from that guess (it is only that, all unscientific an'all), using simple logic, that would have made the UK less exposed to the recession, so there may not have been a need to cut as much/as fast/etc. Then again, as a counterpart there would have been less "social goodness" than there has been up until recently. Swings and roundabouts.

 

It's all SWAGs (Simple-Wild-A55ed-Guesses) anyway

[Mr Prime]

Correct

No, it doesn't.

 

It just says what it says, no secondary meaning: whoever was in power in 2008, Labour, Tories, LibDems, UKIP, BNP, the Commies...the recession was always going to happen.

 

It was just a question of how "ready" which countries would be when it hit, i.e. financially exposed or not.

 

Some have shown they were quite ready (Australia, to name one), others have shown they were naked as a first born (Iceland, lately Greece), and there's everything in-between...with China laughing as it's busy buying entire countries in the background.

 

The UK isn't amongst the worst, I'd say it's clear of the "red lanterns", but it's still trailing Germany and possibly also France (until their public sector funding crisis starts to hit...that one's going to be fun to watch ).

 

The point worth discussing (..perhaps..) is whether the UK would have been hit as hard as it has, if another party had been at the helm since 2003 instead of Labour. I.e. would a Tory or LibDem or Coalition Gvt have spent as much of the taxpayer's yet-to-be-earned as Labour did?

 

My guess is no, even if only based on the parties' respective ideologies and historical precedent. Following on from that guess (it is only that, all unscientific an'all), using simple logic, that would have made the UK less exposed to the recession, so there may not have been a need to cut as much/as fast/etc. Then again, as a counterpart there would have been less "social goodness" than there has been up until recently. Swings and roundabouts.

 

It's all SWAGs (Simple-Wild-A55ed-Guesses) anyway

 

I see, therefore I've been arguing with you for no reason, see what you made me do eh?! Proper debate works better with faces and voices I suppose.

[Cyclone]

the schemes are all based on 50% max of final salary, so £11k is the best you can get after 40 yrs if your final pay figure as £22k pa .

in the more recent scheme devised in 2008 if you opt to move in she would get upto 2k more pension for working and contributing 5 more years.

for someone to get £24k pa pension they have to be earning £48k minimum in either scheme, and if part time then the pro rata will be much much higher, hence my original query as to how does anyone earn 48k part time, ie what do they do!

 

No, I suspect you've got it wrong.

 

If you work 39 years full time (acruing 39/80ths) and then 1 more year half time (accruing 0.5 year). You'll have 39.5/80ths, of the full time equivalent of your final salary. So if you're paid 20k in that final year (half time remember), your pension will work out at

 

(20k * 2 (40k full time equivalent) / 80) * 39.5

 

19.75k

 

If you worked one more year half time, you'd get the full 40/80ths and your pension would be 20k because your full time equivalent final salary is 40k and you've got a full 40/80ths.

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2293317

 

The advice here would seem to mirror what I though.

 

Your final rate of pay is normally calculated on your full-time pay equivalent so that doesn't matter whether you are full-time or part-time. The main difference is the number of years of service accrued.

[XNeilX]

The job has changed beyond recognition.

 

Back in the day, teachers were respected, and didn't have to deal with the vile behaviour they get now. From parents as well as pupils. And they didn't have a fraction of the paperwork or targets that teachers get nowadays. They didn't have a National Curriculum or league tables. They didn't have health and safety breathing down their necks and the danger of little Johny sueing if he tripped over.

 

And they didn't have to justify themselves at every turn...

 

So, what exactly did they have???

[andikay]

So, what exactly did they have???

 

A big stick and a black board rubber to hit us with.

[quisquose]

the 2nd option to go at 65 yrs would increase her pension by £2k thats all. not £6k. 5 years longer worked for £2k more per annum, and a minor increase to a lump sum. she would have had to have put in 45 years service to do so, again she signed up to a 40yr pension scheme.

 

and both the options will become null and void if the govt gets their way, the final salary scheme will go and become career average, thus lowering her forecast significantly.

 

And you know very well that £24k pension your wife will be getting is still based on final salary, ie 48k pa or more pay for part time working. not having a dig, but £13k pension after 40yrs for working full time is a WORLD away from your wifes £24k pension for part time work!

 

And a £13k pension is a WORLD away from what every one of our employees will receive in pension, and almost everybody else in our industry, which is nothing.

 

It would take a fund of about £250k to provide an income of £13k from age 65, and the associated lump sum. Assuming a salary of £26k, it would take an equivalent salary of £35k in the private sector with the difference set aside in a pension savings scheme to be comparative.

 

Cyclone is correct btw. My wife started working for the NHS when she left school, so she could job share for 14 years and still get the full pension. As it happens, she will get 38 years service if she remains part time. Having said that, your irrelevant interest in what her job is will have to remain unsatisfied. That name on the left is not my real name, and I have no intention of broadcasting it on a public forum thank you.

[ChrisT70]

And a £13k pension is a WORLD away from what every one of our employees will receive in pension, and almost everybody else in our industry, which is nothing.

 

It would take a fund of about £250k to provide an income of £13k from age 65, and the associated lump sum. Assuming a salary of £26k, it would take an equivalent salary of £35k in the private sector with the difference set aside in a pension savings scheme to be comparative.

 

Cyclone is correct btw. My wife started working for the NHS when she left school, so she could job share for 14 years and still get the full pension. As it happens, she will get 38 years service if she remains part time. Having said that, your irrelevant interest in what her job is will have to remain unsatisfied. That name on the left is not my real name, and I have no intention of broadcasting it on a public forum thank you.

 

lol! ooh get you.

why would i give a toss what your real name is anyway? i have no interest in you dont worry, non stalking mode firmly on.

 

 

back to your point, where you claimed a £13k pension isnt that far off £24k, and might be made up to £17k or so by switching, well it wont and isnt even close. she can get a max of half pay after 40yrs in her scheme, no more, and can reduce the amount of pension if she takes the higher lump sum. no one in their right mind will jump ship into the later scheme, she would have to work 5 yrs longer and pay in almost £2.5k in additional pension payments, making it 45yrs in a scheme.

 

individual plans for the private sector backed by proper govt funding and investment to match the public sector should be the way forward, with realistic caps on the public schemes to stop the top brass raping the final salary schemes (ie those on £100k+).

[ChrisT70]

No, I suspect you've got it wrong.

 

If you work 39 years full time (acruing 39/80ths) and then 1 more year half time (accruing 0.5 year). You'll have 39.5/80ths, of the full time equivalent of your final salary. So if you're paid 20k in that final year (half time remember), your pension will work out at

 

(20k * 2 (40k full time equivalent) / 80) * 39.5

 

19.75k

 

If you worked one more year half time, you'd get the full 40/80ths and your pension would be 20k because your full time equivalent final salary is 40k and you've got a full 40/80ths.

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2293317

 

The advice here would seem to mirror what I though.

 

i see what you are getting at, the basic principle still being the final salary can only be halved as a maximum pension in the older scheme, for the 40yrs service.

so to get a 24k payable pension per annum, the final pay itself (pro rata) as you say has to be £48k +.

 

if you only earn 22k pa full time, you still cant get a penny more than 11k pension after 40yrs, you can actually take less in their scheme and bump up your lump sum. i've read her choices forecast. there are many more people taking a pension of £7-11k than those taking one of double that, but all are tarred with the same brush!

[quisquose]

lol! ooh get you.

why would i give a toss what your real name is anyway? i have no interest in you dont worry, non stalking mode firmly on.

 

I don't think you do give a toss what my name is, but you do keep asking what my wife does for a living. I'm not telling you, because I would prefer that my wife and I remain anonymous. Ta.

 

back to your point, where you claimed a £13k pension isnt that far off £24k, and might be made up to £17k or so by switching, well it wont and isnt even close. she can get a max of half pay after 40yrs in her scheme, no more, and can reduce the amount of pension if she takes the higher lump sum. no one in their right mind will jump ship into the later scheme, she would have to work 5 yrs longer and pay in almost £2.5k in additional pension payments, making it 45yrs in a scheme.

 

I've never made such a claim. My point is, and always has been, that public sector pensions, even for average paid employees, have become unaffordable due to increased life expectancies. Your sister's £13k is a damn good pension, my wife didn't ask for an even better one she just happened on the right career.

 

individual plans for the private sector backed by proper govt funding and investment to match the public sector should be the way forward, with realistic caps on the public schemes to stop the top brass raping the final salary schemes (ie those on £100k+).

 

And my proposal in #135 might mean we're not a million miles apart.