Public Sector Strikes

[relaedgc]

If I was able to retire in a couple of years and I am abruptly in danger of losing my gold plated pension, I'd be on strike too. Ultimately, we're talking about individuals coming to the end of their working lives and wanting to defend their quite lucrative retirement.

On a personal level, do I blame them? Not in the slightest.

Sure, it's not in the interest of the nation. I don't think I'd be particularly bothered were I about to retire, though. I've worked for you for 20 years. You offered me x. I expect x to be honoured. The feasibility of what is offered doesn't bother the individual. Sure, it's selfish. You can pin that on most folks.

[byronkincaid]

The money they save from pensions will be used to pay off the country's debts not stay in the pension pot? Also more people wont bother taking a pension in the public sector workforce and just get more off the state when they retire.

so there is a multi zillion pound fund set up to pay public sector pensions? what's it invested in?

i thought they get a promise from the govt to pay them when they retire in return for getting less wages today. pretty much same as the state pension no?

The NHS Pension Scheme is unfunded. As is the Teachers' Pension Scheme, and the Civil Service, and the Armed Forces, and the Police, and the Firefighters.

They are all paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund.

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912958

C/P from http://boards.fool.co.uk/there-is-no-such-thing-as-public-money-12421693.aspx?sort=whole#12422517

[redsimon]

The money they save from pensions will be used to pay off the country's debts not stay in the pension pot? Also more people wont bother taking a pension in the public sector workforce and just get more off the state when they retire.

so there is a multi zillion pound fund set up to pay public sector pensions? what's it invested in?

i thought they get a promise from the govt to pay them when they retire in return for getting less wages today. pretty much same as the state pension no?

The NHS Pension Scheme is unfunded. As is the Teachers' Pension Scheme, and the Civil Service, and the Armed Forces, and the Police, and the Firefighters.

They are all paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund.

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912958

C/P from http://boards.fool.co.uk/there-is-no-such-thing-as-public-money-12421693.aspx?sort=whole#12422517

Bit irrelevant because even under the reforms proposed under Hutton they will remain "unfunded". Though try telling those staff facing a increase of employee contributions that they are not "funding" something (deficit reduction?)

[doubleup]

If I was able to retire in a couple of years and I am abruptly in danger of losing my gold plated pension, I'd be on strike too. Ultimately, we're talking about individuals coming to the end of their working lives and wanting to defend their quite lucrative retirement.

On a personal level, do I blame them? Not in the slightest.

Sure, it's not in the interest of the nation. I don't think I'd be particularly bothered were I about to retire, though. I've worked for you for 20 years. You offered me x. I expect x to be honoured. The feasibility of what is offered doesn't bother the individual. Sure, it's selfish. You can pin that on most folks.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions. 

Accrued benefits ie both your examples are not affected by the proposed changes.

[rex008]

The changes supposedly won't affect anyone who is due to retire in the next TEN years.

I find the argument that some unionistas are making about funding deficit reduction is ludicrous. Money is fungible. It doesn't matter whether it goes into a ringfenced pension fund or just goes into central gov bank account - if you end up with the same thing at the end of the day, what's the difference? You want to actually see your money directly fund your pension? Opt out of the government scheme and pay your contributions into a private pension instead. Be interesting to show them what they'd get for their money in that case and start complaining about how "fair" that is.

I pay about 10% of my gross into a private pension. My employer contributes basically bugger all (about 1%, the equiv of the employers NI they save). I'll no doubt end up with a much worse % of final salary as a public sector employee would. I pay large wads of tax (42% on a proportion of my earnings, 32% on most of the rest once you add NI, plus large lumps of VAT, fuel duty, road tax, insurance tax, council tax, etc etc). A decent lump of that goes straight into funding public sector pensions; why should I pay for my pension and theirs as well?

This was all way overdue for reform anyway - the retirement age has not changed in line with life expectation. It's not sustainable to go from an average retirement length of 7 years to 14 years without changing pension funding.

They should all be taken out and shot.

[EvilPie]

The changes supposedly won't affect anyone who is due to retire in the next TEN years.

I find the argument that some unionistas are making about funding deficit reduction is ludicrous. Money is fungible. It doesn't matter whether it goes into a ringfenced pension fund or just goes into central gov bank account - if you end up with the same thing at the end of the day, what's the difference? You want to actually see your money directly fund your pension? Opt out of the government scheme and pay your contributions into a private pension instead. Be interesting to show them what they'd get for their money in that case and start complaining about how "fair" that is.

I pay about 10% of my gross into a private pension. My employer contributes basically bugger all (about 1%, the equiv of the employers NI they save). I'll no doubt end up with a much worse % of final salary as a public sector employee would. I pay large wads of tax (42% on a proportion of my earnings, 32% on most of the rest once you add NI, plus large lumps of VAT, fuel duty, road tax, insurance tax, council tax, etc etc). A decent lump of that goes straight into funding public sector pensions; why should I pay for my pension and theirs as well?

This was all way overdue for reform anyway - the retirement age has not changed in line with life expectation. It's not sustainable to go from an average retirement length of 7 years to 14 years without changing pension funding.

They should all be taken out and shot.

"Money is fungible" - What an awesome word

"42% on a proportion of my earnings" - No attempt at veiling whatsoever. I like it!

"They should all be taken out and shot" - True dat.

[nirvana]

I love that they think they contribute to their pensions in the PS - essentially, I pay for that as well

[ScottMGee]

Notice that no public sector workers have mentioned Hutton's comments over the weekend that the government's proposed changes are fair.