Public Sector Pension Reform

[thirdcrank]

... social security ... indefensible in its current form.

So what do you favour?

[NUKe]

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

I don't quite get your point here Jonty apart from an attack on Jan Which is rather rude.

I think the calibre of people who do work inthe health service is such that they could have got better Jobs else where but they often chose careers Such as Nursing because they wanted to help people. At the time of taking the job the pay was maybe low but they signed up to a package which included a pension. It has nothing to do with being greedy that was on the contract they signed. Now the only way an employer should be able to change that offer is through negotiation with the individual or whoever the individaul has elected to speak on their behalf. They are not asking for anything more than they signed up to. Yes things are probably going to have to change but the changes Cameron and Osbourne are trying to bring in are trying to take much more away from the public sector than is required to cover the Shortfall in the pensions scheme.

It is not the fault of Public sectors workers that private sector pensions have not performed as well.

[Edwards]

How about this for a different way of working out public sector pensions.
You start by working out the total bill the country wants to pay.
You then divide that by the total number of people receiving and those who will receive a pension in that tax year.
That then gives a maximum that you pay to any person in that tax year. The people at the bottom are protected and the so called clever ones are supposed to be intelligent enough to manage their finances properly.

The biggest bonus is that the pension bill can never go over budget.

Jonty my tablets are good yes.

[kwackers]

Now the only way an employer should be able to change that offer is through negotiation with the individual or whoever the individaul has elected to speak on their behalf. They are not asking for anything more than they signed up to.

That's not how it works in the private sector.
This is what happens. You're called to a meeting at 9:00am, at the meeting is the MD's spokesperson and someone from HR. They tell you what's going to happen and you accept it or leave.
There's no "big protest", no mention on the 9 O'clock news, no holding the country to ransom. You make your mind up - which usually means accepting what's on offer whilst quietly wondering why you put up with the crap in the first place...

Yes things are probably going to have to change but the changes Cameron and Osbourne are trying to bring in are trying to take much more away from the public sector than is required to cover the Shortfall in the pensions scheme.

It is not the fault of Public sectors workers that private sector pensions have not performed as well.

What they're offering won't last. What's actually required for the future - say 30 to 40 years down the line is something much bigger in terms of cuts. The end to continual economic growth is fast approaching, we'll all get relatively poorer and all the pension promises being made now will be chucked.
The more pain there is now, the less there'll be in the future. Realistic expectations are what's needed. As Jan points out above, its the poor that suffer when services are cut, so why cut services even harder just to continue boosting peoples unreasonable pension expectations?

[NUKe]

Now the only way an employer should be able to change that offer is through negotiation with the individual or whoever the individaul has elected to speak on their behalf. They are not asking for anything more than they signed up to.

That's not how it works in the private sector.
This is what happens. You're called to a meeting at 9:00am, at the meeting is the MD's spokesperson and someone from HR. They tell you what's going to happen and you accept it or leave.
There's no "big protest", no mention on the 9 O'clock news, no holding the country to ransom. You make your mind up - which usually means accepting what's on offer whilst quietly wondering why you put up with the crap in the first place...

So think that what ever the governement/employers wants we should just put up with it. Back to Victorian times and the ruling classes

[blackbike]

It is not the fault of Public sectors workers that private sector pensions have not performed as well.

Nobody is claiming it is.

Public pensions don't really 'perform' at all in the commercial sense. They don't need to. They offer guaranteed benefits in return for the contributions, something that only the machinery of state, using taxpayers money, can offer to a huge workforce of 6.1 million people.

We are often told (by public sector workers) that public sector workers are altruistic, public spirited and unmotivated by greed and other negative emotions which apparently afflict those of us who work for evil profit in the private sector.

Demanding huge amounts of tax cash from everyone to finance your own superb pensions doesn't really fit in with this image does it? Perhaps the image is false.

[kwackers]

So think that what ever the governement/employers wants we should just put up with it. Back to Victorian times and the ruling classes

Whereas what you suggest is we take the money from those who can't afford it or from private employees who are already having to make up their own shortfalls to ensure that people who already have much better than average pension provisions don't have to make *any* sacrifices???

Dream on. The more nonsense like that I hear the more support Camergoon gets from me.

[thirdcrank]

... no holding the country to ransom ...

Since the public sector is apparently utterly dispensable, a drain on the wealth-producers etc., depending on who is sounding off, I don't really see how that works. Most of the output is apparently unnecessary and the rest could be done by monkeys for much less outlay. Presumably, if there's a strike, just starving them out would be the best way?

[philg]

Back to Victorian times....

A return to debtors prisons, filled with bankers and politicians would have some merit

Any 'real' company saddled with the debt and unfunded liabilities of UK.plc would be bankrupted and it's workers would have nothing.

Only a sovereign state can kick the can down the road by borrowing/printing yet more debt for future workers to pick up - but not for ever.

[kwackers]

... no holding the country to ransom ...

Since the public sector is apparently utterly dispensable, a drain on the wealth-producers etc., depending on who is sounding off, I don't really see how that works. Most of the output is apparently unnecessary and the rest could be done by monkeys for much less outlay. Presumably, if there's a strike, just starving them out would be the best way?

Who said that? I didn't. I didn't even imply it.

I've no doubt the public sector is important, but just like the private sector the occasional trim wouldn't go amiss. Fundamentally the system should be balanced - currently it isn't, we import far more than we export, who's going to make up that shortfall? The public sector? Or should we continue to borrow?

[blackbike]

Many public sector types seem to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement to other people's money.

If the Great British public could arrange index linked, final salary pension schemes for itself then those employed in their service could reasonably ask for a similar treament.

To ask us for to provide fantastic pensions which we don't have ourselves is not just greed, its bad manners.

[thirdcrank]

Many public sector types ....

Would it be rude to ask what sort of "type" you are?

(I'm happy to declare an interest. I'm a public sector pensioner and at age 66 I also draw a full basic state pension.)

[Jonty]

Both private and public sectors are important to our economy. That is not the point.
The point is that many consider that in their current form public sector pensions are unaffordable, unsustainable, unfair and uneconomic. I am one of them.
The benefits which they offer are much superior to that enjoyed by most private sector workers.
Their benefits are often totally underestimated not only by public sector employees but also by private sector employees; many people, even teachers, as well as being relatively innumerate also lack a basic understanding of economics and financial matters.
The proposals put forward by the Government would make public sector occupational pensions more sustainable and affordable. The proposals are to change to an average salary scheme, increase contributions especially for higher earners and delay retirement. These new proposals however would still provide much more generous public sector occupational pensions than most private sector schemes.
If similar action had been taken to make final salary pension schemes affordable and sustainable in the private sector 10 years ago many of these schemes would still be operating albeit in the form of an average salary scheme.
Public sector workers are lucky that belated action is being taken to put their pensions onto a sustainable footing. I'm sure that many private sector workers wish that similar action had been taken to safeguard their pensions.
Finally as a priority the outrageously generous final salary scheme for MPs should be abolished and replaced by an average salary scheme similar to that proposed for public sector workers.

Nuke - I've apologised to Jan.
Edwards - Yes, keep taking the pills.
jonty

[Edwards]

Jonty I am taking the pills.Just to clear up something for you I was not a Teacher.
Is the system I suggested not the fairest of any of that have been mentioned?

[blackbike]

Many public sector types ....

Would it be rude to ask what sort of "type" you are?

(I'm happy to declare an interest. I'm a public sector pensioner and at age 66 I also draw a full basic state pension.)

I work in the private sector and contribute to an employers pension scheme. I will get a pension which depends on the return on the investment of my and my employer's contibutions to that scheme.

I wouldn't want a scheme which guaranteed an index-linked, final salary based payout if that meant other people, nearly all of whom didn't have access to such a scheme, would be required to pay substantial amounts of money via the tax system to make up any difference between the returns on investment of the contibutions and the guaranteed payout.

When people have a hard enough time getting a decent pension of their own it would be greedy, selfish and inconsiderate of me to expect them to boost mine to a level they'll never receive.

I can see a case for some public employees to be given some form of taxpayer guaranteed pension levels for relatively short periods of service. We can't expect firemen, soldiers or even policemen on the beat to work until they are 65. But for the legions of council and civil servant office staff and many other public employees doing normal jobs, why should the rest of us pay higher taxes so they can retire at 60 or even earlier on pensions unavailable to us at 65 or even older?