Public Sector Pay

[quisquose]

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!

 

And yet you've admitted that your sister would get £13k if she retired at 65, which is more than half of £22k.

 

[ChrisT70]

And yet you've admitted that your sister would get £13k if she retired at 65, which is more than half of £22k.

 

 

no, i said if she transferred into the new scheme, and worked 45 yrs not 40, she could gain an additional 2k.

i also said she wouldnt do so and would remain in the old scheme based on 60 and max 40yrs service. so she cannot get more than half pay.

i made that very clear.

d'oh

[ChrisT70]

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.

 

 

 

i was only actually interested in what the actual job was that pays £24k pension (ie more than £48k per annum pro rata full time) to a part time worker, in the NHS. i may have misunderstood your original post which seemed to be saying that was the pension when infact you meant something different.

 

trust me, keep your names and details very very private, please.

 

dont bother now going public, i really aint that fussed, and i really dont want you believing i'm your own private stalker! lol

[quisquose]

no, i said if she transferred into the new scheme, and worked 45 yrs not 40, she could gain an additional 2k.

i also said she wouldnt do so and would remain in the old scheme based on 60 and max 40yrs service. so she cannot get more than half pay.

i made that very clear.

d'oh

 

You're contadicting yourself now. Can't get more than half pay you say, but your sister can in the new scheme you also say, which is still a 40/80ths scheme.

 

And yet you make the reverse claim about my wife, who apparently can't join the new scheme, even though she can, so her pension can only be a reflection of her salary, which must be £48k, even though it's not.

 

My wife has been given examples of six different pensions, with the maximum example being £24k. The actual choice is almost infinite.

 

[ChrisT70]

You're contadicting yourself now. Can't get more than half pay you say, but your sister can in the new scheme you also say, which is still a 40/80ths scheme.

 

And yet you make the reverse claim about my wife, who apparently can't join the new scheme, even though she can, so her pension can only be a reflection of her salary, which must be £48k, even though it's not.

 

My wife has been given examples of six different pensions, with the maximum example being £24k. The actual choice is almost infinite.

 

 

god you are boring me senseless now. please read my lips. my sister cannot get more than 40/80ths in HER scheme, the old one based on retiring at 60.

i have said this quite a few times now to you. at no point did i ever state your wife couldnt join the new scheme, you are now trying to twist it and telling silly lies. cut and paste me where i stated she cannot join the new scheme please ?

 

should my sister opt to join the newer scheme, based on 65, and work more than 40yrs, she can earn an increased pension of £2k more, but she wont have worked 40/80ths . she will have worked 45/80ths, thats how it works, more years past 40 worked equals slightly higher pension.

 

my sister wishes to remain in her existing scheme which pays slightly more if you go at 60 with 40yrs in, than the new scheme would if she joined it and went at 60, which would penalise her as its based on 65 as a retirement age. the options they give you are all based on the 2 schemes only, some give you an option to take a reduced pension and larger lump sum, the older scheme she wishes to remain in does NOT give you any option to take more than half final pay as a pension!

christ for the love of god, jog on now.

[quisquose]

god you are boring me senseless now. please read my lips. my sister cannot get more than 40/80ths in HER scheme, the old one based on retiring at 60.

i have said this quite a few times now to you.

 

should she opt to join the newer scheme, based on 65, and work more than 40yrs, she can earn an increased pension of £2k more, but she wont have worked 40/80ths . she will have worked 45/80ths, thats how it works, more years past 40 worked equals slightly higher pension.

 

she wishes to remain in her existing scheme which pays slightly more if you go at 60 with 40yrs in, than the new scheme would if she joined it and went at 60, which would penalise her as its based on 65 as a retirement age. the options they give you are all based on the 2 schemes only, some give you an option to take a reduced pension and larger lump sum, the older scheme does NOT give you any option to take more than half final pay as a pension!

christ for the love of god, jog on now.

 

Well good, you've therefore sussed your own flawed logic then, when you have repeatedly claimed that my wife must be on at least £48k. By working a few more years, in the old scheme, or the new, in picking the highest pension from the 6 examples in the document, it will obviously be more than 40/80ths.

 

I hope your sister's not getting financial advice from her brother.

 

[ChrisT70]

Well good, you've therefore sussed your own flawed logic then, when you have repeatedly claimed that my wife must be on at least £48k. By working a few more years, in the old scheme, or the new, in picking the highest pension from the 6 examples in the document, it will obviously be more than 40/80ths.

 

I hope your sister's not getting financial advice from her brother.

 

 

you obviously missed my post a while back, where i stated i may have misunderstood your original poorly worded post that your wife gets a pension of £24k pa for part time working, where you were obviously trying to show the public sector scheme up as grossly over paid.

 

before i pass out due to boredom with your posts, just for the record, can you actually quote me ever stating your wife couldnt join the new scheme or not? you made that up i'm afraid, the clue is in the pensions "choices" document itself, its a choice for them to opt into a newer scheme or stay where they are.

 

have a discussion by all means, dont try and make crap up i never said.

 

as for financial advice , i cant moan and she wouldnt be badly off if she does listen :-)

[ChrisT70]

5/80 of a teacher's salary would accrue a pension of approx £1500 pa. Not bad for 5 years employment.

 

Somebody in the private sector will need an annuity of £30k to provide that.

 

Edit: My wife got some pension literature from the NHS yesterday. She works part-time, but if she sticks it out until she's 65 she'll be entitled to a pension of £24k. She was a bit shocked when I told her she would have to save nearly half a million to get those benefits if she was doing it for herself.

 

theres your original post, clearly making the point she will get a 24k pension for working part time. you dont mention she "may" have already worked many years full time to get to that favourable pension provision, hence my mistake if i assumed she was raking in 24k pension as a part time worker. you obviously intended it to read that way to back up your argument for slashing public sector pensions.

 

you then decided to try your best to twist it during the discussion into me "demanding" your private details, when i merely asked what job pays a 24k pension for working part time, exactly as it reads from your post.

 

your words above, not mine. maybe you can find my supposed claim your wife cant join the new scheme now?

[quisquose]

you obviously missed my post a while back, where i stated i may have misunderstood your original poorly worded post that your wife gets a pension of £24k pa for part time working, where you were obviously trying to show the public sector scheme up as grossly over paid.

 

before i pass out due to boredom with your posts, just for the record, can you actually quote me ever stating your wife couldnt join the new scheme or not? you made that up i'm afraid, the clue is in the pensions "choices" document itself, its a choice for them to opt into a newer scheme or stay where they are.

 

have a discussion by all means, dont try and make crap up i never said.

 

Gosh you can twist words can't you. I've never claimed that you said my wife couldn't join the new scheme. You have though repeatedly said that my wife must earn £48k.

 

you wife must earn £48k part time

 

It's your failure to understand the choices document that I'm laughing at. Thanks for the entertainment. Good night.

 

[ChrisT70]

You're contadicting yourself now. Can't get more than half pay you say, but your sister can in the new scheme you also say, which is still a 40/80ths scheme.

 

And yet you make the reverse claim about my wife, who apparently can't join the new scheme, even though she can, so her pension can only be a reflection of her salary, which must be £48k, even though it's not.

 

My wife has been given examples of six different pensions, with the maximum example being £24k. The actual choice is almost infinite.

 

 

there you go, just to entertain you, thats where you made up some more crap. you cant provide any proof as i never claimed your wife couldnt join the new scheme, thats one lie you made to try and justify your argument.

night night