Warnings about public sector final salary pensions...
Discussion
Many of these people have worked for years, often for lower salaries than private sector employees but reasonably expected to get their reward later, when they retired. I'm not sure I agree with closing their schemes to current members just because other people, who took jobs with not so good pensions aren't doing so well.
Presumably most of the people relishing the reduction in other's pensions had the option of some kind of lower paid public sector work but elected not to take it.
Presumably most of the people relishing the reduction in other's pensions had the option of some kind of lower paid public sector work but elected not to take it.
fido said:
ExChrispy Porker said:
fido said:
another idea - increase the retirement age to 70 or 75 - those who want to retire earlier will lose n years entitlement?
Do you really want 70 year old firefighters?
el stovey said:
Many of these people have worked for years, often for lower salaries than private sector employees but reasonably expected to get their reward later, when they retired. I'm not sure I agree with closing their schemes to current members just because other people, who took jobs with not so good pensions aren't doing so well.
Presumably most of the people relishing the reduction in other's pensions had the option of some kind of lower paid public sector work but elected not to take it.
The article, and basic acceptability, refer to future employees more than present.Presumably most of the people relishing the reduction in other's pensions had the option of some kind of lower paid public sector work but elected not to take it.
Present employees would presumably have current positions (frozen) and then move to the new average scheme or whatever it might be?
el stovey said:
Many of these people have worked for years, often for lower salaries than private sector employees but reasonably expected to get their reward later, when they retired. I'm not sure I agree with closing their schemes to current members just because other people, who took jobs with not so good pensions aren't doing so well.
Presumably most of the people relishing the reduction in other's pensions had the option of some kind of lower paid public sector work but elected not to take it.
And you're happy to continue to pay massive amounts opf personal and concil tax to pay for non-productive workers? next time, have a good look through your concil tax bill andd see jsut how much of what you pay NOW is for pensions. The coucils / government fPresumably most of the people relishing the reduction in other's pensions had the option of some kind of lower paid public sector work but elected not to take it.
ked up - they didn't invest in pensions, instead expected the tax-payer to continue to fund this extravagence. Now "we've" had enough, and about time too.ExChrispy Porker said:
Any new scheme can only apply to new entrants, otherwise the lawyers would have a field day with breach of contract and suchlike. This is what has already happened to whittle away at the police conditions of employment and pension scheme.
I'm afraid it's easy enough to close a private sector final salary scheme to current members as long as you can fully fund the scheme before doing so. The employer can then transfer employees to a cheaper money purchase scheme. Many companies have closed their schemes not only to new members but to current members in the last few years. I assume public sector schemes have some sort of invested fund, assets etc or are the public simply the fund?
Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 26th August 18:00
mondeoman said:
And you're happy to continue to pay massive amounts opf personal and concil tax to pay for non-productive workers? next time, have a good look through your concil tax bill andd see jsut how much of what you pay NOW is for pensions.
Why do you assume all people employed in the public sector are "non-productive"? Why are they any less deserving of the pension they have been promised than someone employed in the private sector?
el stovey said:
mondeoman said:
And you're happy to continue to pay massive amounts opf personal and concil tax to pay for non-productive workers? next time, have a good look through your concil tax bill andd see jsut how much of what you pay NOW is for pensions.
Why do you assume all people employed in the public sector are "non-productive"? Why are they any less deserving of the pension they have been promised than someone employed in the private sector?With a shrinking private sector, and the closure of many final-salary schemes, private sector employees will have to pay more and more tax to fund the public sector, including their pensions. Public sector employees pay tax, but it's money given to them by the state and then taken back in tax, so it's not actually adding to tax revenues.
I'm envious, and would consider going into the public sector precisely because of the security it's offered until now. But taking it to extremes, if we all end up working in the public sector or on welfare, who will pay for everything?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff