Public Sector Pension Reform

[Edwards]

Jonty
The figures I gave were for a teacher retiring at 55, so according to the claims made about retiring early are not true.
Now you are saying that you are changing the position and are going to use an older age just to increase to amounts you quote.
I used my wife's pension statement that is less than a month old and according to that you still have got it wrong

[Jonty]

There was an advert on the TV in Scotland not long ago that stated that 5% of the population of Scotland worked in the public sector.

There was another advert around the same time that said that about 5% of adults in Scotland had difficulty with reading and writing.

Are we talking about the same 5%? Just asking a question!

No - the 5% working in the public sector (teachers in the main in this example, but possibly others such as speech therapists) would be helping the 5% with literacy and numeracy needs. Can't imagine anyone in the private sector doing that unless it was on a voluntary basis. As I've said before, cut back the public sector and you'll hurt those who need us most.

Jan

Surely those who benefit from public expenditure most are public sector workers who have a vested interest in having jobs and good pensions at the behest of the taxpayer.
This self-interest masquerading as public concern is really quite nauseating.
"Give me a pension much bigger than yours because I have a job which helps people".
Yuk..
jonty

[Jonty]

Jonty
The figures I gave were for a teacher retiring at 55, so according to the claims made about retiring early are not true.
Now you are saying that you are changing the position and are going to use an older age just to increase to amounts you quote.
I used my wife's pension statement that is less than a month old and according to that you still have got it wrong

Edwards
If a teacher retires at 55 then they are retiring 5 years early so their pension will be reduced by 25%. In the case you quote of someone with 32 years experience and a final salary of £36k and who retires 5 years early then their pension would be 32 eightieths of £36k X 0.75 which equals £12.15k (the 0.75 represents mathematically a 25% actuarial reduction).
Obviously if one retires early one should expect to get, and get a smaller pension.
If the person you are talking about had not retired early then they would have retired with 37 years experience (32+5)and there would be no actuarial reduction. In that case the pension would be 37 eightieths of £36k which is £16.65k per year.
In the case of Meic the example I gave was assuming a final salary of £45k ( a Maths Head of Department) with the full 40 year service record which would provide a pension of 40 eightieths of £45k which is £22.5k plus a tax free lump sum of one and a half times salary which would be £67.5k.
So thank you for verifying my figures.
I know that many teachers find simple sums impossibly difficult but this just shows what you can achieve when you keep taking the pills and make the effort.
If you have further difficulties on working out pensions please feel free to PM me.
jonty

[Edwards]

jonty for all your fancy figures you do not match the pension statement. So if I want a maths lesson I will look elsewhere. Thanks for the offer but if you do not match what the pension people have written down I do not think you are that reliable.
The point about retiring early as in 55 has not been made until now as it did not match the claims needed to quote higher figures. Remember all those posts about women retiring at 55.

[jan19]

This self-interest masquerading as public concern is really quite nauseating.

You really do have a jaundiced view of public services. You're obviously entitled to what you think, but in my case at least you're completely wrong if you think all I joined the public service for was to make money. You can make as many arguments as you like, but that fact remains.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I joined the public service way back in 1979 because, odd as it might seem to you, I wanted to be in that area of work. I actually enjoy doing a job which I've always felt helped people. That's not to say of course that those in the private area don't help people - of course they do, but with my qualifications and abilities, the public area was the one most suited to me with those aims. I didn't have any desire to go into insurance, or some of the other private sector jobs I was best qualified for. The very last thing I was thinking of was how I could make lots of money at public expense. (I bet I'd have done a lot better in insurance....) My pension forecast, 12 years from now is £4k per annum. Hardly a good decision to do the job I do if all I was interested in was money!

Some of us, funnily enough ARE concerned for other people, hard as it might be for you to believe. Find it nauseating if you like.

Jan

[Edwards]

You really do have a jaundiced view of public services. You're obviously entitled to what you think, but in my case at least you're completely wrong if you think all I joined the public service for was to make money. You can make as many arguments as you like, but that fact remains.

The worst part is all the stuff is coming from somebody who really does (according to him) have a very very good public sector pension and he did not do anything usefull to get it.
Remember your old posts jonty.
Why did you start this thread? It seems to me that a good part of the motivation was so that you could gloat about the vast sums the tax payer are giving you.

[Jonty]

This self-interest masquerading as public concern is really quite nauseating.

You really do have a jaundiced view of public services.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I joined the public service way back in 1979 because, odd as it might seem to you, I wanted to be in that area of work. I actually enjoy doing a job which I've always felt helped people. That's not to say of course that those in the private area don't help people - of course they do, but with my qualifications and abilities, the public area was the one most suited to me with those aims. I didn't have any desire to go into insurance, or some of the other private sector jobs I was best qualified for. The very last thing I was thinking of was how I could make lots of money at public expense. (I bet I'd have done a lot better in insurance....) My pension forecast, 12 years from now is £4k per annum. Hardly a good decision to do the job I do if all I was interested in was money!

Some of us, funnily enough ARE concerned for other people, hard as it might be for you to believe.

Jan

Jan
I appreciate what you say and I'm sure that you have gone into public service for all the right reasons. I actually have a very high opinion of the public service in this country. I've spent most of my career in the public service.
What I was concerned about in your previous comment was the implied suggestion that these services to vulnerable people were in some way provided through the largess of the people providing those services.
I accept however that I may have "jumped the gun" on that.
In fact such services are provided through the largess of the British taxpayer. It is us the people who pay for these services and the decision to provide them is made by us through our elected political representatives.
The people who deliver them are simply employed to deliver them and one hopes that such people will be caring/sharing people and efficient.
They could be delivered by private firms but I tend to favour public provision for all sorts of reasons.
If we the people, through our elected representatives, decide that such services can no longer be afforded, or the money should be saved or spent elsewhere, then the people providing those services will lose them jobs in the same way as if we stop buying bicycles people who make bicycles will lose their jobs.
There has been a theme evident in this thread that public sector workers are special, exceptionally well qualified and educated and are therefore an elite who should continue to enjoy pensions far superior than their "inferiors" in the private sector.
I don't accept that analysis.
If you are doing a useful job as I'm sure you are, the reason why you have the opportunity to do it is because we the people have decided that the job should be done and have provided the taxes to pay for it.
If we decide otherwise, then you'll have to find another job.
jonty

[reohn2]

............Why did you start this thread? It seems to me that a good part of the motivation was so that you could gloat about the vast sums the tax payer are giving you.

Which is par for the course for dear old jonty boy!

[Jonty]

jonty for all your fancy figures you do not match the pension statement. So if I want a maths lesson I will look elsewhere. .

Thank goodness for that.
jonty

[jan19]

If

you are doing a useful job as I'm sure you are, the reason why you have the opportunity to do it is because we the people have decided that the job should be done and have provided the taxes to pay for it.
If we decide otherwise, then you'll have to find another job.

Yes, that's quite true and those of us in public service are finding that those jobs we've done for years are now becoming "optional extras" as far as our local councils are concerned as they try to save money. I do still contend however that many public sector jobs aim to help those who could be considered on the bottom rung of society (most of the functions of Social Services for example aim to help such people.)

What I think I've found difficult to accept from various of your (and some other posts) is that we public servants get some sort of magnificent pay-out, at the expense of the taxpayer, having done a pretty shoddy and non-accountable job to get there. Unfortunately the nature of the beast is that the public sector pays our wages, and ultimately our pensions (although we do contribute ourselves of course - its not all one-way traffic) .As I've said I'll get about £4k in my pension, provided I continue to work full-time for the next 12 years (which is currently a rather unrealistic expectation). I have too many years at part-time, and a lengthy break in service to ever get to 40/80ths when I could get £13k.

I have to say, if I had my time again I would have trained as a landscape gardener. I could do all the planting now - I love plants and have a good idea about what grows where but I'd fall down on the design element.

Jan

[Edwards]

I have to say, if I had my time again I would have trained as a landscape gardener

I think that you would find that most people would now rather have done anything else.

[Jonty]

Jan
I'm aware that things are difficult in the public sector and are likely to get a lot worse. I'm also aware that public sector workers are often "rubbished" in certain sections of the Press by people who couldn't or wouldn't do their jobs for twice the money.
But getting back to pensions I appreciate that you probably contribute about 6% of your income to your occupational pension. However some economists put the value of index-lined defined benefit public sector pensions at about 30% of salary. This figure can be disputed but whatever way you look at it the employer - which in the case of the public sector is the Government in some shape or form and eventually the taxpayer - is picking up a huge bill to provide these pensions, which are much more generous that those enjoyed by most people in the private sector.
If you are a lowly paid worker and work part-time you inevitably will have a smaller pension. Although the public sector pension reforms put on the table by the Government are significantly less generous than existing arrangements, lower paid workers in some cases may receive a pension equivalent to that available under present arrangements, and will only have to pay a higher contribution if they earn over £15k.
I think the proposal at present is that contributions would increase by 1.5% for earners between £15k and £18k.
However everyone will have to work longer to get their full pension.
The people who will be hit hardest will be the higher paid who are promoted towards the end of their careers who will also have to increase contributions by 3%.
Also bear in mind that changes to the State Pension which I think comes into operation in 2012 are being made to specifically help women. In order to obtain a full State Pension the requirement will be 30 years national insurance contributions which is considerably less than current requirements.
The Government is bringing this in because they are aware that many women take time out from work to have children and to care for relatives and they consider it unfair that they should lose out because of this.
Also the State Pension is to increase to £7k per year (currently about £5.2k),I think from 2016 but I'm not sure on the effective date. Also in the lifetime of this Parliament the tax threshold is to increase to £10k (I think at present it's about £7k) so anyone can earn £10k before paying tax.)
Also note that when retired one does not pay National Insurance Contributions. Many people don't realise this but it is a considerable saving as NICs are levied at 12% on incomes between roughly £6k and £40k (I haven't checked the exact figures).
The Government is IMO doing quite a bit for women and poorer pensioners, which I support. They are doing this by cutting back on pension arrangements for the higher paid (less favourable taxation allowances, lower pensions, higher contributions etc) and allocating some of the savings to the lower paid and making savings.
There's some good articles on the proposed pension reforms on the BBC website.
Sorry if I've been a bit insensitive.
jonty

[jan19]

Sorry if I've been a bit insensitive.
jonty

Not a problem Jonty, we're all here to express our opinions, and you're entitled to yours. Thank you for admitting you'd misunderstood a previous reply of mine.I appreciate that.

Jan

[thirdcrank]

I suppose the armed forces and warfare more generally are the biggest example of public spending. In the modern world of spin, we have the situation where even miltary top brass - traditionally the most discreet of public officials - are now openly expressing their fears. When I heard Cameron's snide remark on the news "You fight, I'll talk" I had to check to make sure that was what he said. Does this clown not know that that the talking is supposed to avoid the need for fighting? He really means "You get killed, I'll shed the crocodile tears."

[andrewk]

I suppose the armed forces and warfare more generally are the biggest example of public spending.

Wrong, social security is the highest single budgetary programme. Also possibly the most indefensible in its current form.