Strikes: Who will pay

[tinfoilhat]

Nice to see we're all in it together. We in the public sector think it's a scandal that pensions in the private sector have been closed to most workers (but not all - check out how many Directors still have them though) and have been made largely worthless.

 

Yet there are some private sector workers who seem to be positively reveling in the same destruction of public pensions.

 

My union's view is "fair pensions for all". For some in the private sector it seems to be "well I don't have pension, so why should anyone else?" Not a very nice way to think surely?

 

I'm not sure what you saying in the middle paragraph. If people don't have pension they either don't have one by chioce or work for a teeny weeny company as all businesses who have more than 5 (I think) staff have to offer stakeholder pensions by law.

[MrSmith]

Being a civil servant, I will be paying more for less. My pension isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

Welcome to the real world.

[L00b]

There is no investment. All my pension contributions go straight back into the Treasury. The Treasury then pays the pensions and spends the surplus.

Been over this before in an earlier thread (with your example of 5 current employees' contributions paying one current retiree's pension).

 

Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.

 

Accordingly, with rising life expectancies for current contributors and 'young retirees', it is entirely logical that more needs to be paid into the pot (and still more will, at least until most of the baby boomers are pushing up daisies), or the scheme eventually collapses.

[Guest sibon]

But if the union leaders were to think and discuss things like that then they'd have no leg to stand on and no one would pay for their extravagant wages and pension plans!

 

All that my Union have asked for is a proper valuation of our scheme. It was reformed about six years ago. The scheme is supposed to be valued every five years and contributions revised based upon that evidence. The rules are available online if you want to check.

 

Is that too much to ask? Value our pension fund and charge us more if it is necessary? Seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately, the Coalition stopped the actuaries from doing their stuff and made some random guesses instead.

[Guest sibon]

Odd, I have been led to believe that the public sector pensions are put into long term "safe" investments, hence Osbourne asking the pension fund managers to invest in his civil works programme.

 

Then you really need to check your facts before weighing into an argument.

[spooky3]

All that my Union have asked for is a proper valuation of our scheme. It was reformed about six years ago. The scheme is supposed to be valued every five years and contributions revised based upon that evidence. The rules are available online if you want to check.

 

Is that too much to ask? Value our pension fund and charge us more if it is necessary? Seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately, the Coalition stopped the actuaries from doing their stuff and madfe some random guesses instead.

 

If they were to re-evaluate last year, then on those figures it'd be even worse than the current figures... If the pot is empty, well, it's empty!

 

From what i've heard from the union delegates is that just want more, which can only come from higher taxes or cuts in public funding.

[MrSmith]

Nice to see we're all in it together. We in the public sector think it's a scandal that pensions in the private sector have been closed to most workers (but not all - check out how many Directors still have them though) and have been made largely worthless.

 

Yet there are some private sector workers who seem to be positively reveling in the same destruction of public pensions.

 

My union's view is "fair pensions for all". For some in the private sector it seems to be "well I don't have pension, so why should anyone else?" Not a very nice way to think surely?

 

It’s more a case of we know there isn't enough money to pay for them. Maybe if the public sector didn’t flush so much money down the toilet there would be more for everyone.

[spooky3]

Then you really need to check your facts before weighing into an argument.

 

Well, unless it's all changed very recently.

 

Otherwise can you kindly explain how a small contribution can turn into a pensionable wage later... that is how it works. And that was headlines within the last few days!

 

 

EDIT:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067523/Autumn-Statement-2011-George-Osborne-announces-30billion-infrastructure-Treasury-teams-pension-funds.html

[Swan_Vesta]

Welcome to the real world.

 

So you're happy getting shortchanged and the rest of us should be as well?

[Guest sibon]

Been over this before in an earlier thread (with your example of 5 current employees' contributions paying one current retiree's pension).

 

Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.

 

Accordingly, with rising life expectancies for current contributors and 'young retirees', it is entirely logical that more needs to be paid into the pot (and still more will, at least until most of the baby boomers are pushing up daisies), or the scheme eventually collapses.

 

Hi L00b:)

 

We have indeed been through all of this.

 

On the ponzi scheme. I see no problem with the structure of the scheme, as long as it attracts new members. I can't see the number of teachers changing dramatically, and the scheme pays for itself at the moment (or it did last time the beans were counted). It has paid for itself from inception.

 

The increase in retirement age will probably sort out the life expectancy issue.

 

Incidentally, I've no problem with the increased retirement age. I can sort that out with a bit of planning. The across the board, ill thought through 3% contribution increase is a real problem though. Against a background of essentially a five year pay freeze and inflation at 5%, that measure is going to drive out a lot of the younger scheme members, which will affect my claim up there ^^^.