The majority of public sector pensions are for less than £5k a year, together with the state pension that will be below the poverty line for many pensioners.
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
The majority of public sector pensions are for less than £5k a year, together with the state pension that will be below the poverty line for many pensioners.
Think again, I am in the medical profession and have a far better knowledge than you as to what is projected to happen in the next 20+ years when it comes to life expectancy.
Please enlighten us, then ...
Opinion that backs up those who paid for the report vs. actual facts. Hmm what to believe?
Well you go against the accepted norm as well as life expect has and continues to increase.
Obesity increase. Cancer from smoking decrease. Swings and roundabouts. While medical care continues to march forward as does early detection rates.
There is a lot of misinformation about public sector pension schemes. The facts are:
The local government and NHS pension schemes were renegotiated in 2006 to make them sustainable and affordable.
Both schemes are cash rich – more is going in than coming out.
Last year, the NHS scheme received £2billion more in contributions than it paid out and this money went straight to the Treasury.
The average pension in public service pension schemes is very low, for example in local government, the average is just over £4,000, falling to £2,800 for women.
If these people didn’t save for their retirement, they would have to rely on *means-tested benefits paid for by the taxpayer.
Pensioners are already being hit with the move from RPI to CPI to calculate annual inflation increases – this will reduce their value by 15%.
When the NHS scheme was renegotiated, protection was built in for current members to retain their retirement age of 60. New members have a retirement age of 65. If that agreement is broken, industrial action could follow.
Government cuts to local government employers grants mean that the shortfall in pension contributions has to be made up by employees. They may have to pay between 50% and 100% more for a reduced pension. This is effectively a tax on low paid workers.
Studies have shown that if the contributions rise too much, workers will desert the local government scheme and it could collapse.
The local government scheme invests more than £100billion in the UK economy. If the scheme collapsed, it would have a devastating impact on the economy.
how long is the average service and how much is the average employee contribution?
the disconnect from reality when it doesn't suit is terrifying to behold...
Private pensions rely on investment of money into 'the market', where there is a risk of the value of the investment going down as well as up. Public pensions rely on there being enough money in the pot RIGHT NOW to pay for the pensions of those who have already retired. Given that there will be a greater proportion of the population retired in the future the size of this pot per person is going to be smaller in the future and the government needs to do something NOW to adjust to this fact. While there is not a perceived risk with regard to public pensions they rely on the fact that the private sector pay enough money into the pot to pay those pensions.
The statement that public pensions are self sufficient is, to be blunt, complete BS. The money the government has to spend does not just magically appear and (obviously) the taxation of public sector salaries doesn't cover it, so it relies on the taxation of the private sector, so you can see why those is the private sector do not support these strikes.
Basically there isn't enough money in the pot and the public sector are going to have to suck it up, in just the way the private sector had to when the stock market went belly up.
Which "actual facts" are you referring to?
Exactly, using figures for this year and ignore extrapolated data for the future. But then again what do you expect from the unions.
Coming from a union member which is pretty much public sector, although technically private.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Which Union?
Rubbish - look at the graph Floogie posted and take some time to understand it.
Predictions of Benefits reducing after new policies inacted.Is pensions even included in benefits. Where's the info on the graph.
What do you think it shows? And why do you think it supports your claims?
The graph that is post changes and the unions and other liars keep misrepresenting?
Do we have to cover this a third time as it's becoming pretty tedious?
Firstly, Hutton is not an authority this fan chart as it was generated by GAD and only included in this report.
Secondly, his comment to the unions was based about him mixing the terms of the argument from one of 'sustainability' (which it is, as the graph shows) to one of 'affordability' (which is a political decision) which allows some debate as to whether the fan chart can adequately address that issue.
You can hardly blame people for fighting for what they were promised to have and what was only renegotiated in a pretty major case only 5 years ago. Anyone would do the same. It is for the government when the pressure is applied to see how important these things are to them.
And as for life expectancy (above) I think it is safe to assume we really do not know whether we get further advances or whether the value will decline. What we can expect is more variation.
And as for life expectancy (above) I think it is safe to assume we really do not know whether we get further advances or whether the value will decline. What we can expect is more variation.
stop lying about and misrepresenting the graph and I'll stop calling you on it. pretty simple really...
Sorry, but you are either incredibly dense when it comes to this issue or willfully so. Which is it?