They're Unfair And Unaffordable

[campervanman]

What makes you think that private sector companies have a duty to provide pension benefits to employess at a similar level to unaffordable public sector rates.

And if they did have such a duty then private sector pay would be cut by 20% to pay for it, thus giving equivilent public sector workers wages a third or more higher than in the private sector.

Volunteering to have a smaller slice of a bigger cake makes sense if the cake grows faster than your slice reduces. Having a smaller slice of a shrinking cake however is not so clever.

[Si1]

Volunteering to have a smaller slice of a bigger cake makes sense if the cake grows faster than your slice reduces. Having a smaller slice of a shrinking cake however is not so clever.

it wasn't volunteering - it's survival

[xux42]

Of course its unfair, simply because public pensions are unwillingly extracted from private workers who largely cannot afford to provide for themselves.

Yup.

Some Unison git was on the radio this morning. Clear from the outset that no way in hell was he going to accept any point, however valid, that in any way threatened his members current and potential pension rights.

Went on to spew a right load of cobblers about smoothing out the cost of Public sector pensions over the next 20 years.

Here's a thought - how about cutting back public sector pension payments with legal guarantees that if independent, annual actuarial reviews show that higher payments are in fact affordable, then top ups are made?

If the Unison tw@t is correct then he would have nothing to fear from this approach....

All this talk of rights - its just b0llocks if the funding isn't there. Senior P.S. "workers" about to retire know this only too well and are trying to grab the cash then pull up the ladder.

Bast*rds.

Don't get me wrong - no problem with nurses, porters, hassled administrators, overstretched IT support staff etc. Its the foul career managers devoting huge amounts of time (that we are f*cking paying for) ensuring they take the biggest possible slice of the pie that make me mad. And no this isn't gleaned from right wing editorial rants - I know people in the public sector - education, NHS & MOD.

[campervanman]

it wasn't volunteering - it's survival

And we all finish up 'surviving' in a third world hell where people are encouraged to give up 'unaffordable' benefits. Is that really what you want?

[Si1]

And we all finish up 'surviving' in a third world hell where people are encouraged to give up 'unaffordable' benefits. Is that really what you want?

no. it seems you can't break away from the la-la money grows on tree marxist drivel you are so infected with. you are wrong on your most basic premises.

[Goat]

Volunteering to have a smaller slice of a bigger cake makes sense if the cake grows faster than your slice reduces. Having a smaller slice of a shrinking cake however is not so clever.

Not sure what that means TBH or what it has to do with pensions.

Except that the public sector seems to want an ever growing slice of an ever smaller cake.

[Si1]

Yup.

Some Unison git was on the radio this morning. Clear from the outset that no way in hell was he going to accept any point, however valid, that in any way threatened his members current and potential pension rights.

Went on to spew a right load of cobblers about smoothing out the cost of Public sector pensions over the next 20 years.

No credit crunch for union chiefs as perks soar by up to 69%

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23530285-no-credit-crunch-for-union-chiefs-as-perks-soar-by-up-to-69.do

[Goat]

And we all finish up 'surviving' in a third world hell where people are encouraged to give up 'unaffordable' benefits. Is that really what you want?

Oh come off it.

These third world hell holes are poor because they are hopelessly corrupt or war torn, not becuase they don't pay massive pensions to former public sector workers.

In fact they're poor because an elite favoured by the ruling parties get a huge and unaffordable slice of the action leaving nothing left for the rest. Remind you of anything?

[RDW]

“If Nick Clegg comes for our pensions, as he boasted only yesterday, then we will ballot for national strike action,” he affirmed to noisy and enthusiastic applause.

Bring it on Prentis, it will be an easy way to work out which of the leaches we won't actually miss and can post them on their cards.

[Guest Noodle]

Oh come off it.

These third world hell holes are poor because they are hopelessly corrupt or war torn, not becuase they don't pay massive pensions to former public sector workers.

In fact they're poor because an elite favoured by the ruling parties get a huge and unaffordable slice of the action leaving nothing left for the rest. Remind you of anything?

+1

[DeepLurker]

And we all finish up 'surviving' in a third world hell where people are encouraged to give up 'unaffordable' benefits. Is that really what you want?

Hi Campervanman,

Just out of curiosity - let's say (purely as an example) that over your working life you paid 15% of your income towards the retired part of the population, to pay for pensions, bus passes, NHS end-of-life care, etc...

Now the next generation comes along and says that they are happy to put 15% of their income towards the elder generation.

What would your reaction be? Do you think the the young'uns attitude is normal... or is it generous... or is it selfish?

[SHERWICK]

Hi Campervanman,

Just out of curiosity - let's say (purely as an example) that over your working life you paid 15% of your income towards the retired part of the population, to pay for pensions, bus passes, NHS end-of-life care, etc...

Now the next generation comes along and says that they are happy to put 15% of their income towards the elder generation.

What would your reaction be? Do you think the the young'uns attitude is normal... or is it generous... or is it selfish?

I wouldn'tbe suprised if the next generation came along, saw the massive amounts of wealth held by the elder generation, and thought "Sod that! I ain't giving them 15% of my hard earned income!".

[SHERWICK]

Hi Sherwick, since Hilltop doesn't seem to be very talkative I'll try to answer myself.

His posting seems to come from box 7 on page 21. I can't copy and paste the text but this figure seems to be referenced to a study by the PPI called "an assessment of the government reforms to public sector pensions" The following should take you there:

http://www.pensionsp...2&publication=5

Now this is where it gets interesting:

The PPI report actually says the following on page 44 (also on page 5):

So the £4,000 figure is the amount contributed per employee by employers and is not the amount actually paid out to the average pensioner - deeply misleading to start with.

Secondly, although not specifically mentioned in the report, that £4,000 figure appears to derive from all employees, part time and full time, which will drag the average down significantly (we can deduce this from page 33 where a total figure of £31bn is given, which implies 7,750,000 employees - which must be full and part time).

Finally, Had hilltop read the report in full I'm pretty sure he'd have kept quiet about chapter 5.

Briefly, for public v private employees the unexplained (by age & qualifications) pay gap is: males: -2.0%; females +4.7%. Ignoring "occupational factors" (i.e. unions and collective bargaining) that gap becomes M: +0.5% F: +9.9% (!)

These figure are for full time employees back in 2004. Now I think it's fair to say that the pay gap has only opened further since 2004, and certainly since the S.H.T.F back in 2007, when private sector pay stagnated but the public sector carried on as normal. My guess is that it's widened by at least 10% from 2004.

So briefly, after adjusting for differences in age and qualifications: public sector pay is at least no worse than equal to private sector equivilents, probably actually exceeds it by between 10% - 20%, includes longer holidays, far better sickness benefits and better terms and conditions generally and of particular value at the moment infinitely better security of employment.

And on top of that the value of the pension contributions is approaching three times the value available to most private sector employees who are lucky enough to have an employer scheme at all.

Thanks Goat. A very good explanation, though I find it difficult to believe that the £4,000 figure is the amount contributed per employee by employers and is not the amount actually paid out to the average pensioner. Maybe both amounts are £4000 and they've only explained the one that's the amount contributed per employee?

[huw]

Thanks Goat. A very good explanation, though I find it difficult to believe that the £4,000 figure is the amount contributed per employee by employers and is not the amount actually paid out to the average pensioner. Maybe both amounts are £4000 and they've only explained the one that's the amount contributed per employee?

Daily Mail article posted elswhere

The union response comes after it emerged public sector pensions will cost taxpayers a shocking £18billion this year - equivalent to the annual budgets of the Army and Royal Navy combined.

Around £4billion will go to the 2.2million people already on government pensions and the remaining £14billion into pension contributions for civil servants still in work. The Office for Budget Responsibility said the £4bn payout to retirees this year could double to £9 billion by 2014.

So not that high, much less than the £4000 mooted above.

I wonder what's the main driver of the change supposed to happen by 2014 -- a lot more retirees, or retirees with better pensions?

[Goat]

Thanks Goat. A very good explanation, though I find it difficult to believe that the £4,000 figure is the amount contributed per employee by employers and is not the amount actually paid out to the average pensioner. Maybe both amounts are £4000 and they've only explained the one that's the amount contributed per employee?

It's not 100% clear and I don't have time to go digging through the source material (which seems to be an ons publication on pension treands).

I think the £4,000 is the notional value of amounts contributed into unfunded schemes (i.e. what would need to be contributed if they were fully funded) plus amounts actually contributed into funded schemes.

In any event the original claim that the average public sector pension is only £4,000 per annum seems to be a long way off the mark.

[Cogs]

It's not 100% clear and I don't have time to go digging through the source material (which seems to be an ons publication on pension treands).

I think the £4,000 is the notional value of amounts contributed into unfunded schemes (i.e. what would need to be contributed if they were fully funded) plus amounts actually contributed into funded schemes.

In any event the original claim that the average public sector pension is only £4,000 per annum seems to be a long way off the mark.

No, it is wrong. The average is closer to 7k but its positively skewed the same as earnings themselves, the mode is probably 4k though. You have to remember the make-up of the public sector pensioner is different from the average public sector worker now (e.g., someone with a degree, nearly 70% more likely to have an advanced degree). The populations are different; a lot of cooks, tea ladies, porters, cleaners etc. in there that have since been outsourced.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Cogs

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

[*]Freeze all existing local authority pension entitlements at their current level: There is no legal right for workers to continue to receive the current pension deal for future year's payments. Each pension member's existing entitlement should be frozen. At the age of sixty five they should receive a pension based on their last year of earnings before this freeze occurred (increased by the retail price index) times the number of years they worked prior to the freeze

the bold-bit might be illegal against contract law, not clear, but it I suspect it would save a lot - or maybe not...

Correct, it would. It would have to be voluntary.

You can't even sack them for efusin to accept new terms.

The UK would need to pull out of the EU and then pass some rather groundbreking laws.

[Si1]

Correct, it would. It would have to be voluntary.

You can't even sack them for efusin to accept new terms.

The UK would need to pull out of the EU and then pass some rather groundbreking laws.

not sure about that - there is pretty comprehensive legislation in place that already allows private sector employers to vary terms, that IS legal under EU.

For example, existing final sal public sect pensions could be maintained but not permitting any new contributions. However, optional entry to the following-on scheme could be on condition of changing conditions of prior contributions.

And anyhow, the EU might not be in much a position to argue when they would simply much rather we stayed solvent.

[Guest sillybear2]

Frogs not liking it :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10326002.stm

[campervanman]

Frogs not liking it :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10326002.stm

Of course the French are cutting from a much higher base. French pensioners are not treated like criminals so reducing entitlements from existing levels still leaves them much better off than their British counterparts.

[Guest sillybear2]

Of course the French are cutting from a much higher base. French pensioners are not treated like criminals so reducing entitlements from existing levels still leaves them much better off than their British counterparts.

I just pity the fools who are paying for this, speaking of which :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7829820/Taxpayers-contribute-3.40-to-public-sector-pensions-for-every-1-paid-by-state-workers.html

[Timak]

Of course the French are cutting from a much higher base. French pensioners are not treated like criminals so reducing entitlements from existing levels still leaves them much better off than their British counterparts.

I always find it funny how the "right" dislike the French so much.

They work less hours, get much better allowances (holiday, retirement etc) and still have a smaller debt/deficit than those free market countries like the USA and UK.

[Guest sillybear2]

I always find it funny how the "right" dislike the French so much.

They work less hours, get much better allowances (holiday, retirement etc) and still have a smaller debt/deficit than those free market countries like the USA and UK.

They can't afford the largess, French debt is massive, they're on the same path as Greece. Their structural unemployment is also far higher. The whole of the old EU is the same, Germany is ok because it runs a massive trade surplus but it's still affected by demographic problems.

Edited June 16, 2010 by sillybear2

[SHERWICK]

No, it is wrong. The average is closer to 7k but its positively skewed the same as earnings themselves, the mode is probably 4k though. You have to remember the make-up of the public sector pensioner is different from the average public sector worker now (e.g., someone with a degree, nearly 70% more likely to have an advanced degree). The populations are different; a lot of cooks, tea ladies, porters, cleaners etc. in there that have since been outsourced.

The average number is rubbish and very misleading because it would include people who have only worked a couple of years in Local Government.

I would like to see the complete distribution of Local Government pensions for those who have served at least 25 years in Local Government.

[leicestersq]

No, 2-3% is a realistic real growth assumption, once you have adjusted for inflation or the gilt yield and the management fees.

2 - 3 % is a great return, given that the ftse is down from 6900 to 5200 over 10 years, and interest rates are at 0.5%.

Would like to know how to get that 3%.