Public sector pensions
blackpoolkev
Posts: 474
Why should I (private sector worker) contribute towards the public sector pensions black hole? If government employees think that the proposals in the Hutton report are unfair then maybe they could try to buy their pension provision on the open market.Good luck.
0
Comments
-
Just because private sector pensions have been cut back, why should public sector pensions do the same? It's just a race to the bottom that makes us all worse off. Pensions are just deferred wages. When you sign on for a job, then you sign on for the whole package. Public sector wages are on average lower, so they get a higher pension as compensation. Private pensions are just a scam to fill the boots of the City. And if your boss is ripping you off, why take it out on other workers?0
-
I didn't say my boss was ripping me off.I will say you failed to give a satisfactory answer to my question.0
-
And don't forget, despite all the publicity, the average public sector pension is just £7800 p.a..
As GeorgeShaw said the current pensions were part of their contract.0 -
This Civil Servant has 25 years sevice, no pay rise in the last 7 years and nothing to come for another two at least, our pensions are going to change AGAIN and we'll need to work longer to get less of a pension ... anyone want to tell me why the public service should take the lions share in solving this countries finacial problems that were caused by the Banking and Finance Sectors???0
-
blackpoolkev wrote:Why should I (private sector worker) contribute towards the public sector pensions black hole? If government employees think that the proposals in the Hutton report are unfair then maybe they could try to buy their pension provision on the open market.Good luck.
Are you suggesting that, because someone works in the public sector they shouldn't get a pension?
Although I now work in the public sector I have two pensions that I built up when I worked in the private sector - both of these are good. I took a pay cut to move to the public sector but this was compensated by, in part, the pension.
Pension can be seen as deferred wages. I chose to defer my wages until I retired. We pay for public sector (teachers, binmen, social care, NHS, the fire service, the police, through taxation. We pay for goods and services through the cost of the product or service. Why should I pay for private sector pensions through higher prices for goods and services?
The problem, I think, is not with public sector pensions but with private sector. How many companies took 'pension holidays' (that is didn't pay into the pension fund) when times were good? How many, legally or not, used the pension fund to finance corporate expansion (that friend of Labour, Robert Maxwell comes to mind).
Add to this Gordon Brown's tax raid on pensions - a most appalling piece of fiscal robbery and that is where the root of the problem is. Because the government and pivate companies make bad errors of judgement, that is no reason to pull down public sector pensions. The answer is to raise the bar in the private sector not attack school cleaners, nurses, the armed forces, etc.
-Spider-0 -
On the news yesterday morning Hutton, the Labour peer who wrote the report said that you would need to contribute 25% of salary to a private pension to equal the deal a public sector worker gets paying just 8% of their salary.
The traditional public service response is that it is to compensate for lower wages but Hutton said that this is simply no longer true.
I don't blame public sector workers for trying to get the best deal they can but it's hardly fair on everyone else is it when it's taxes footing the bill? I for one tend to agree with the OP and do feel slightly bitter about this and I get the impression more and more people are starting to as well.0 -
blackpoolkev wrote:Why should I (private sector worker) contribute towards the public sector pensions black hole? If government employees think that the proposals in the Hutton report are unfair then maybe they could try to buy their pension provision on the open market.Good luck.
Why should you not contribute to the pensions black hole?0 -
Vaseline wrote:blackpoolkev wrote:Why should I (private sector worker) contribute towards the public sector pensions black hole? If government employees think that the proposals in the Hutton report are unfair then maybe they could try to buy their pension provision on the open market.Good luck.
Why should you not contribute to the pensions black hole?
He does!!
.... and we all do in the tax and NI we pay on our salaries, the VAT on everything we buy and the duty on booze/fags/fuel. The issue is where is best place for the government to spend it's tax income, I'd suggest not distorting the pensions market by subsidising a load of cushy pensions for civil servants0 -
Wage levels and contributions are up for debate. Two things that shouldn't be up for debate in my opinion are these:-
1. Public sector workers should not be able to retire at 55 on a full pension when for the rest of us it will be 67+.
2. The Government is partly at fault but banking is the primary cause of the financial malaise and should therefore pay the burden. Que - bankers will leave etc but if they were that good we wouldn't be in this mess.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I work in the private sector and my final salary pension was stolen from me when that worthless fat waste of blood and organs Gordon Brown decided it was a good source for topping up his gold plated pension. It was part of my contract too, but they just closed it anyway, no mention of mass strike action at that time funnily enough...... :evil:The problem is we are not eating food anymore, we are eating food-like products.0
-
I pay 11% into my pension and the pension is pretty much the only reason I stick with the job I do. If the pension goes, my motivation for doing my job does too.
Furthermore, do people in private sector think public sector workers don't pay tax or something? We get taxed exactly the same...0 -
daviesee wrote:Wage levels and contributions are up for debate. Two things that shouldn't be up for debate in my opinion are these:-
1. Public sector workers should not be able to retire at 55 on a full pension when for the rest of us it will be 67+.
2. The Government is partly at fault but banking is the primary cause of the financial malaise and should therefore pay the burden. Que - bankers will leave etc but if they were that good we wouldn't be in this mess.
I hardly think a 67 year old police officer or firefighter would be fit for purpose...0 -
Your job has always had a higher pay-in since you could leave earlier and a lot of the job was unsocial anyway. That was really the deal. Higher pay-in for earlier get-out and poss. a chance of another job.M.Rushton0
-
squeeler wrote:... I'd suggest not distorting the pensions market by subsidising a load of cushy pensions for civil servants
Remember to tell that to your nurse next time you go to hospital.0 -
blackpoolkev wrote:Why should I (private sector worker) contribute towards the public sector pensions black hole? If government employees think that the proposals in the Hutton report are unfair then maybe they could try to buy their pension provision on the open market.Good luck.
Stop being so selfish and take a broader view.
Why should the people/companies who pay your firm pay for your pension either?
Bastards.0 -
squeeler wrote:Vaseline wrote:blackpoolkev wrote:Why should I (private sector worker) contribute towards the public sector pensions black hole? If government employees think that the proposals in the Hutton report are unfair then maybe they could try to buy their pension provision on the open market.Good luck.
Why should you not contribute to the pensions black hole?
He does!!
.... and we all do in the tax and NI we pay on our salaries, the VAT on everything we buy and the duty on booze/fags/fuel. The issue is where is best place for the government to spend it's tax income, I'd suggest not distorting the pensions market by subsidising a load of cushy pensions for civil servants
I am well aware that he does, as do we all. We also contribute to the NHS and the Fire Service. My house doesn't burn down and I am not sick. Why should I contribute to that? The fact is that I do so because the Fire Service and the NHS are services that are the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund. As are the staff in the public sector. When you take a job you do so knowing that there is a certain remuneration package. The pensions are part of that package. Taxpayers pay the whole package for public servants and there is no reason whatsoever why taxpayers should not pay it.
The opening question can be rewritten as "why should the taxpayer pay the remuneration of those people who are remunerated out of taxpayers money?" If you can't answer that one yourself then it's a very big surprise you found yourself in the position of a taxpayer in the first place.0 -
As Nap plenty of us pay 11%+ a month into the pot...thats a lot of cash.
MP`s pay nowt and a full pension in 20 years (possibly 15) taking a huge amount at the end.
The real deal here should have been you get out what you pay in.......I dont think the armed forces MP`s and a few others will be shouting too loudly then...?
0 -
I'm a private sector employee and I bare no grudge to public employee benefits.
We all have the option of where we choose to work so don't whinge.
I earn as a private employee around £6000 - £10000 more than a public employee in the same role so over a work lifetime I could, if I wanted to, have as good a pension pot as them.0 -
I don’t think private and public sector workers turning on each other is good for anyone. For me the problem is that the public sector pension is an ‘unfunded’ scheme, that is the money is not coming from a pot of saved cash like a private pension but is just written as IOU’s against future taxation which is quite stupid imo. It’s almost a ponzi scheme in fact, where your returns are based not on any investment but on more people buying into the system in the future ie. There are sufficient taxpayers. If I tried to set up something similar I’d be had for fraud. Not a situation I’d want my future based on thanks very much so I guess that makes me a rare private sector worker who doesn’t envy the public sector workers one bit, quite the opposite in fact.
What is needed is a sovereign wealth fund of sorts like Norway has but unfortunately successive governments have stuck their heads in the sand on this to get to where we are now.0 -
My point is that tax money should be re-distributed by the government fairly, to support and build the country infrastruture as a whole and support for those in need.
I have no problem paying tax at all, and of course civies pay their share of tax too, what I do expect that the powers that be try to spend our tax money wisely and for the good of the country as a whole, IMO this pensions issue gives civil servants a pretty major perk or unfair advantage over the rest of us.
"Remember to tell that to your nurse next time you go to hospital." -George Shaw
What are you on about?0 -
squeeler wrote:My point is that tax money should be re-distributed by the government fairly, to support and build the country infrastruture as a whole and support for those in need.
I have no problem paying tax at all, and of course civies pay their share of tax too, what I do expect that the powers that be try to spend our tax money wisely and for the good of the country as a whole, IMO this pensions issue gives civil servants a pretty major perk or unfair advantage over the rest of us.
"Remember to tell that to your nurse next time you go to hospital." -George Shaw
What are you on about?
If you want talent in public services, and f*ck anyone who doesn't, pay needs to be competitve. Since arseholes who don't have two braincells to rub together get angry about public sector salaries, the way around that, to still keep the talent, was to ensure a reasonable pension. Now that has to go too. What's the point?
I'm in a very bad mood and fed up with selfish bastards who can't think beyond their own nose.0 -
squeeler wrote:On the news yesterday morning Hutton, the Labour peer who wrote the report said that you would need to contribute 25% of salary to a private pension to equal the deal a public sector worker gets paying just 8% of their salary.
The traditional public service response is that it is to compensate for lower wages but Hutton said that this is simply no longer true.
I don't blame public sector workers for trying to get the best deal they can but it's hardly fair on everyone else is it when it's taxes footing the bill? I for one tend to agree with the OP and do feel slightly bitter about this and I get the impression more and more people are starting to as well.
Nail on head! It's not about who gets what fairly or unfairly - it's about where is the money coming from to sponsor the public sector pension system. It has been bolstered long enough, and cannot continue on its current course. The UK can no longer afford to operate on this basis.
The alternative for public sector workers is pay more in! And, no, public sector workers do not get paid less than private sector workers - the figures suggets everyone is on level playing field in terms of income!!
And those who say the issue is with private sector pensions are talking tosh! I hardlly know anyone who can afford to pay into the pension at the same amount which is subsidised into the public sector pensions. Furthermore, what do you think would happen to the private employers cost if they were forced to pay higher amounts into employees pension's, and then the subsequent price rise in goods (tat that we don't really need) that we all buy.Plymouthsteve for councillor!!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:squeeler wrote:My point is that tax money should be re-distributed by the government fairly, to support and build the country infrastruture as a whole and support for those in need.
I have no problem paying tax at all, and of course civies pay their share of tax too, what I do expect that the powers that be try to spend our tax money wisely and for the good of the country as a whole, IMO this pensions issue gives civil servants a pretty major perk or unfair advantage over the rest of us.
"Remember to tell that to your nurse next time you go to hospital." -George Shaw
What are you on about?
If you want talent in public services, and f*ck anyone who doesn't, pay needs to be competitve. Since arseholes who don't have two braincells to rub together get angry about public sector salaries, the way around that, to still keep the talent, was to ensure a reasonable pension. Now that has to go too. What's the point?
I'm in a very bad mood and fed up with selfish bastards who can't think beyond their own nose.
I'm not angry at public servants in any way, I just don't agree with the way their pensions are funded, sorry for being an arsehole with less than two braincells!0 -
squeeler wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:squeeler wrote:My point is that tax money should be re-distributed by the government fairly, to support and build the country infrastruture as a whole and support for those in need.
I have no problem paying tax at all, and of course civies pay their share of tax too, what I do expect that the powers that be try to spend our tax money wisely and for the good of the country as a whole, IMO this pensions issue gives civil servants a pretty major perk or unfair advantage over the rest of us.
"Remember to tell that to your nurse next time you go to hospital." -George Shaw
What are you on about?
If you want talent in public services, and f*ck anyone who doesn't, pay needs to be competitve. Since arseholes who don't have two braincells to rub together get angry about public sector salaries, the way around that, to still keep the talent, was to ensure a reasonable pension. Now that has to go too. What's the point?
I'm in a very bad mood and fed up with selfish bastards who can't think beyond their own nose.
I'm not angry at public servants in any way, I just don't agree with the way their pensions are funded, sorry for being an arsehole with less than two braincells!
If you did all your food shopping at tesco and all other shops were an inconvenient way away (as it often is in the Fenlands for example) and you found out their pension plan added 20p to every item in food shopping, would you be getting angry? Probably not. Part of the income any organisation receives, private or public, gets paid into the pension pot.
No wonder bloody john lewis isn't so cheap - look at their pension system! Bastards. Only, I can live without John Lewis - I can't live without public servants.0 -
I'm not angry thay get a pension at all, just concerned that it is out of whack with what everyone else gets.0
-
-
The way I see it, when the public sector pension scheme was developed, life expectancies were much shorter than they are now. So the deal could be paraphrased as 'you work for us and we'll give you this pension for (say) an average of 10 years before you shuffle off'. The union line now could be paraphrased as 'if we work for you, you must now give us that same pension for (say) an average of 20 years'.
It's all very well saying 'it's the government's fault and the government should pay'. I find it's a useful practice whenever I hear that to delete the second 'government' insert the word 'taxpayer' and see how it sounds then. I don't think it at all unreasonable for the government to rebalance the interests of public sector workers and taxpayers: that's one of their jobs. And I don't think it unfair to say 'now people are living longer, we're all either going to have to work a little longer, pay a little more, or accept lower pensions'. That's what's happening in spades in the private sector, and I can't see why it shouldn't happen in the public sector too!0 -
-
squeeler wrote:The traditional public service response is that it is to compensate for lower wages but Hutton said that this is simply no longer true.
Bad Hutton, bad Hutton. Write 100 times "I will not make misleading sweeping generalisations'........rhext wrote:And I don't think it unfair to say 'now people are living longer, we're all either going to have to work a little longer, pay a little more, or accept lower pensions'.
The 'or' is misplaced. Part of the problem is that it is 'work longer, pay more, get less'.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:rhext wrote:That's what's happening in spades in the private sector, and I can't see why it shouldn't happen in the public sector too!
Why should what happens in the private sector reflect the public?
Because the output of the private sector pays the public sector's wages!
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of public services, and I don't begrudge the considerable proportion of my income which goes towards funding it. But all of the things you are complaining of: wage freezes (reductions in many cases), pension contribution increases and benefit reductions, 'efficiency improvement measures' (AKA redundancies) have been cutting through the private sector like a scythe over the last 2-3 years. To have the public sector turn round and say 'but you must continue to pay even more taxes so that we don't have to suffer from the same issues' seems far from 'fair' to me. I don't think you guys realise quite how cold it is out here at the moment.0
