Public sector Pension
- Thread starter borich_planner
- Start date
The big problem with public sector pensions is that there isn't investment in a lot of them, they are unfunded, or alternatively simply a liability for the taxpayer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ctor-pensions-Just-how-generous-are-they.html
I don't think anyone would complain about that, well, apart from the poor sods (that's us) forced to pay for it under duress.
It has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with who is paying for it. With the poorly funded public sector pensions the tab is picked up by the tax payer. If they can restructure it so that it is properly funded then I would have no issues with it, however you probably wouldn't want the increase in pension contributions that would require.
Absolutely! You wouldn't want to break their legally binding contracts with knee-jerk retrospective legislation, would you?
Of course not, which is why you would freeze the existing pensions.
Because you don't bring in retrospective legislation, which was my main argument against raiding Fred Goodwin's pension. Hence keeping the currently accrued pensions as is and then moving on to a more realistic and fundable pension from that point onwards.
Glossing over the fact that my pension contributions went up last time it was restructured, I will just say again: public servants work for lower wages than the equivalent private sector person, and a large part of that difference is down to pension provision. For instance, the private equivalent of my job pays about 10% more, but has a lower employer contribution than mine. If I want the same pension, most of that 10% differential will disappear in higher payments from me. If you want public servants to pay more into the pension pot, then pay them more in the first place so they can afford to. Whoops - that would still come out of the public purse. As I said, it's a quid pro quo: they get paid less now, on the understanding that at least the pension keeps track with inflation. But of course an index-linked pension based on a low salary is a low pension.
Out of interest, of those criticising the PCSPS final pension scheme, how many are in a final salary scheme?
M
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,203
- Location
- N Ireland
The quicker you go the better. Did you not say in another thread that your education was being funded by the tax you paid?
While this certainly used to be the case is it still the case for the vast majority of public sector roles? I can certainly see it for very senior posts, but the majority of roles is that really the case anymore?
The difference being in the private sector that is much more likey to be a money purchase scheme which would require considerably more than a 10% contribution.
In about 4 days I won't have any pension but why is it even important? You are not forced to pay for a private sector final salary pension (the vast majority of which are closed now anyway).
You only have to look at the public salary pension liabilities to see that they are so huge they cannot be paid. If they cannot be paid then they will not be paid...irrespective of the rights and wrongs.
A start would be to increase public sector retirement age to match the private sector immediately. Then, change all final salary schemes to average salary (again with immediate effect), and make sure employee contributions rise to an appropriate level...perhaps 10 or 15% of salary with employer contributions capped at 4% as is the case with my employer for example.
If you don't like it then get a well paid job in the private sector (if they'll have you)
Private sector pay and pensions are shafted too, so if you are in the public sector don't expect ever poorer private workers to fund your retirement. Fund it yourself.
I have no pension as I think they are going to be inflated away. At 39, I have a six figure sum in savings, shares, and hard assets and I earn barely above the average UK salary. If I can do it, so can public sector workers. You really don't have any choice, since as I said at the start of this rant, public sector pensions cannot be afforded, so will not be paid
A start would be to increase public sector retirement age to match the private sector immediately. Then, change all final salary schemes to average salary (again with immediate effect), and make sure employee contributions rise to an appropriate level...perhaps 10 or 15% of salary with employer contributions capped at 4% as is the case with my employer for example.
If you don't like it then get a well paid job in the private sector (if they'll have you)
Private sector pay and pensions are shafted too, so if you are in the public sector don't expect ever poorer private workers to fund your retirement. Fund it yourself.
I have no pension as I think they are going to be inflated away. At 39, I have a six figure sum in savings, shares, and hard assets and I earn barely above the average UK salary. If I can do it, so can public sector workers. You really don't have any choice, since as I said at the start of this rant, public sector pensions cannot be afforded, so will not be paid
lol
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,748
- Location
- Glasgow
If I wasn't in the job that I am with the pension I have I would be very reluctant to start paying into another pension. I think I would rather invest the money myself.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Sounds good but depending on when you retire (and obviously how well you've invested your funds) it might not be such a clever idea, some people have had huge amounts of value wiped off their investments in a matter of months and it isn't as if you are likely to be better off storing it under your bed. At the moment if you've lost less than say 10% of the capital invested then you're probably not doing too badly, the expectation has to be that the economy will recover and will rise above even the previous high points over the longer term - none of which is any particular consolation to the people who are retiring in the very near future.
There are no democracies that don't waste money, fact
I think you could expand that to any form of governance that has yet been tried.
I'd be intersted in seeing a more detailed breakdown of that study rather than the one paragraph in each article you linked. You have to remember that most of the lower paid public sector jobs are now outsourced.
If I were to move to the private sector I could quite easily get more money, but I'd much rather have the pension scheme.
Yep, we've got to get rid of all the hard working, university educated british people to make room for the immigrants.
By the vat I paid and the tax my parents pay.
Last edited:
Yep, we've got to get rid of all the hard working british people who could benefit the country to make room for the immigrants.
You don't really fall into that category yet though do you?
In time, in time.
You are still currently a drain on resources though and you have already said you intend to bugger off as soon as you can. Therefore you aren't going to fall into the "hardworking taxpayer" bracket. Future promises of income mean nothing!
You are still currently a drain on resources though and you have already said you intend to bugger off as soon as you can. Therefore you aren't going to fall into the "hardworking taxpayer" bracket. Future promises of income mean nothing!
I'm already investing thousands in the british economy, I have more invested than I have borrowed, so overall I'm a net contributor.