ChrisT70 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 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. see above post , proof provided you did indeed claim just that, lie no2 .:hihi: "hoisted by your own petard" would about sum it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 there you go, just to entertain you, thats where you made up some more crap, and where i asked you to prove it. night night The claim you made, is that my wife must be on £48k, which is logically flawed. Even you have now admitted it. I have not claimed that you have said anything you haven't. For the purposes of simplicity, just so you can understand: "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." "Apparently" Understand? From just one figure ... a £24K pension ... you made a claim ... a salary of £48k ... which was flawed .... which could only be possibly right .... if you made various assumptions ... being calculated on the old scheme. Hence apparently. Your sister must be on a salary of £26k right, she just must be? BTW, I've never known somebody edit their posts so often. I think I'm replying to something, and then it changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The claim you made, is that my wife must be on £48k, which is logically flawed. Even you have now admitted it. I have not claimed that you have said anything you haven't. For the purposes of simplicity, just so you can understand: "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." "Apparently" Understand? From just one figure ... a £24K pension ... you made a claim ... a salary of £48k ... which was flawed .... which could only be possibly right .... if you made various assumptions ... being calculated on the old scheme. Hence apparently. Your sister must be on a salary of £26k right, she just must be? didnt you like me pointing out your lie in my previous post then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 i'm entitled to edit my own words, you will however note i havent changed a single word of yours, merely quoted you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 probably time to let the actual thread return on topic, nothing to be gained of interest from arguing the toss with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 i'm entitled to edit my own words, you will however note i havent changed a single word of yours, merely quoted you. And you don't seem to understand sarcasm. But then I am "full of it" and a liar. Keep it up. (Your sis should stay on the 95 scheme though imho) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 And you don't seem to understand sarcasm. But then I am "full of it" and a liar. Keep it up. (Your sis should stay on the 95 scheme though imho) :waves: i agree totally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 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 Well, yeah. But only an NQT earns anything like that low. , 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! Are we not talking about teachers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 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. It's not a job that pays 48k pro rata. It pays 50.5k (based on 38 years contributions) full time. The person in question doesn't work full time, but will have achieved 38 years service contributions. The part time work is irrelevant since we know the years of contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sues_budgie Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Even if public sector pay and private sector pay were exactly the same, the benefits for working for the public sector are better by a mile. Even if we are talking about the private sector being 10% worse off (which they aren't) - the public sector would be better. With the pensions, the option to have long term sickness (provided you are permanent of course), the holidays, the security (still better than the private sector) and other benefits, the public sector at this moment in time is the better option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.