£1.0 Trillion To Fund Public Sector Pension Liability

[crookesey]

To put this in context it works out at £40K per UK household, is this liability sustainable and affordable?

 

When the Private Sector is being told that it must work until it drops not only to fund it's own state pensions but also to prop up the Public Sector pension scheme do members think that a change is in order?

 

Whilst Private Sector final salary schemes are being wound up due to funding problems along with Gordon Brown stealing tax credits from them the Public Sector schemes are iron-clad safe. Personal pension provision has been similally treated and in total Mr Brown is £5.0 Billion per annum better off.

 

A 55 year old Public Sector employee with 30 years service can retire with a full pension and tax-free cash comutation. Private Sector workers have seen their retirement aspirations dashed by pension wind ups, poor equity performance and Mr Brown doing his Dick Turpin act.

 

A public sector employee earning say £40K per annum pays on average of £2400 per annum in personal contributions but receive £960.00 tax relief. Why they should get tax relief in the first place if baffling as they would have to be complete lunatics not to join a pension scheme funded out of taxation that can be accessed at age 55 and is fully guaranteed and only costs them £1440.00 per annum net of tax relief.

 

Someone is going to have to fund the pension shortfall awaiting millions of Private Sector workers and me thinks that the Public Sector should do it's bit by:

 

Foregoing tax relief on their own pension contributions.

 

Foregoing the State Pension in circumstances where their Public Sector pension is considerable.

 

The government should do their bit by:

 

Taking it's grubby hands out of Private Sector workers pension schemes.

 

Increasing the Basic State Pension and linking annual increases to earnings.

 

Getting rid of means tested benefits.

 

I would be interested in both Public and Private Sector opinion.

[taxman]

Public sector. £14,200 p/a. Be working 'til I'm 70.

 

Yep, here we go again bash the low paid public servants working in local offices whilst confusing us with Whitehall mandarins. Read the Daily Mail by any chance?

 

Now as for all the mega rich private sector fat cats, earning £100+ a year with all their golden handshakes, tax avoidance measures, off shore holdings, million pound pay-offs and no public accountability I think they should be taxed at 70%, all windfall profits given to the NHS, made to do an honest days work for once in their lives then shot.

 

See my insane rant is about as relevant as yours - just from the opposing viewpoint.

[taxman]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4785702.stm

[Seb27]

I also work in the public sector and like " taxman " , I am not one of the Whitehall Mandarins.

 

The media, in particular newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express, love to have a regular " dig " at the public sector workers, with the " huge" pensions etc etc and I can therefore understand that a person that works in the private sector, would be concerned.

 

I think one issue that needs to be considered is that all of the public sector workers that I know provide essential services to the general public for a rate of pay that is relatively poor. My husband, as an example, works for the NHS, he's a Scientist, he has a Masters degree, lots of experience etc but earns far less than his equivalent in the private sector and it would appear less than some unskilled workers.

 

I also have an " equivalent" in the private sector, earning double the salary that I earn, a company car, bonuses and a pension.

 

I do not feel guilty about having a public sector pension available to me. I can see it from the " other side", I used to work in the private sector and yes it does appear unfair.

 

I would ask though, that instead of taking in all of the media spin, that you think about the issues. Public sector workers get " bashed " by the media, on a regular basis and the particular " £1.0 trillion to fund public sector pension liability" is just another story.

[crookesey]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a rant

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4785702.stm

 

So please tell us the truth according to you.

 

Tax relief on personal pension contributions was meant to be an incentive for Private Sector workers to make private pension provision. This was hijacked by the Public Sector under pension legislation that states: 'No pension arrangement can better the benefits provided by the Civil Service Pension Scheme'.

 

Public Sector employees appear to be oblivious to the fact that company cars are needed to drive thousands of business miles and the user ends up with a negative tax code. I am sure that the Public Sector thinks that they are provided just to get to the office.

[extaxman]

I retired from the Revenue about four years ago. At that time I had been working for them for 42 years - each of those years we had been told that our percentage wage rise was below the national average to fund our pensions. So just work out what effect 42 years worth of below average wages was worth to me!

 

Incidentally, at that time and as far as I know still does, a Civil Servant had to work 40 years to get a pension of half his wage, not 30 years as crooksey says.

[Tony]

IMO there is 1 basic problem with the UK economy.

 

A third of workers are public sector.

 

*ducks for cover as the civil servants and charity workers rally*

[extaxman]

Tony,

 

Taxmen produce nothing but cost? I don't think so.

[Mathom]

IMO there is 1 basic problem with the UK economy.

 

A third of workers are public sector.

 

*ducks for cover as the civil servants and charity workers rally*

 

Probably a lot more than a third in Sheffield. If it wasn't for those kinds of jobs there would be a lot of unemployed!

 

They are cruddy jobs (you can be doing the work of six people in one job), but they offer good hours, sick pay and a decent pension (for some) so that's why people are willing to take them - or in the case of Sheffield, have not many more options to choose from!

 

Even so, the pensions are still not that great if you do not advance far up the ladder, or if you are a woman and have taken time out to have kids, as they are based on final salaries.

[crookesey]

I retired from the Revenue about four years ago. At that time I had been working for them for 42 years - each of those years we had been told that our percentage wage rise was below the national average to fund our pensions. So just work out what effect 42 years worth of below average wages was worth to me!

 

Incidentally, at that time and as far as I know still does, a Civil Servant had to work 40 years to get a pension of half his wage, not 30 years as crooksey says.

 

The 85 rule is used frequently in the Public Sector to enhance retirement benefits and get rid of slackers. You don't appear to appreciate that you were able to retire and receive a pension unlike many Private Sector workers who will get next to nothing.

 

Taxman sums up the peception that the Public Sector has of the Private Sector in that any employee in the Private Sector earning good money should be taxed at a 70% rate because they lazy. There wouldn't be any Public Sector if there wasn't a Private Sector to pay for it out of taxation on new money.

 

It appears that the Public Sector both expects and demands that the Private Sector continues to pay its wages and fund its pensions whilst it couldn't care less about the Private Sectors working conditions and pension arrangements. I wondered how many Public Sector employees are paid The National Minimum Wage, how about none?