Election period

[french frank]

so blinkered he was by the larger party's inaccurate dogma about the cost of public sector pensions.

I know nothing about public sector pensions, other than that my state retirement pension is by far the major component of my pension income.

However, I've looked at the PPI's Briefing Paper on public sector pensions and the coalition's reforms. I can see that this is the paper which concludes (and was widely publicised at the time) as cutting the value of public sector pensions by a third.

It also says:

"After the Coalition’s proposed reforms the value of the pension received by lower earners will be higher as a percentage of their salary than that of higher earners, as higher earners must pay higher contributions for the pension they receive, compared to lower earners. [ ... ] This does not mean that a higher earner gets a lower pension in absolute terms than a lower earner, but that a lower earner accrues a pension per year that represents a higher percentage of their salary, compared to a high earner."

It also says that in the four main sectors - NHS, Teachers, Local Government and Civil Service - the pensions will be higher than in the private sector.

"Nevertheless, even after the reforms the value of the Teachers’ pension scheme remains more valuable than an average private sector Defined Contribution scheme which is typically worth around 10% of a DC scheme member’s salary."

Do public sector staff pay larger contributions [I've no idea how much anyone pays]?

[Richard Barrett]

The old chestnut is similar to the new one. For Jews, substitute Romanians.

exactly

[Beef Oven!]

exactly

Exactly? Isn't that a bit strong?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Do public sector staff pay larger contributions [I've no idea how much anyone pays]?

I used to think of the word "reform" as being something positive. But when the so-called pension reforms are on the table, it's all about pays as little as possible while increasing the contributions. What the Coalition has done is to claim the existence of a black hole, where none exists. The government refuses to back its assertions with any figures. In the case of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, there was a review in the mid noughties, chaired by Lord Hutton. Changes were made, including an increase in contributions, and an agreement that if there were a shortfall, contributions would increase, on the promise that the figures would be published regularly.
When the Coalition came to power, they immediately set up a new commission for all public sector pensions, and then went on to make wild claims, but in the case of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, refused to publish the figures - Messrs Osborne and Gove were "not minded to do so". When the teachers put forward their estimated figure of a £45 billions surplus, the Coalition did not refute this; they simply ignored it and carried on with the hype, with Danny Alexander playing 1st trumpet. Then they bumped up the pension age again and demanded increased contributions.

Such has been the theft from the TPS that Robert Maxwell starts to look like one of the good guys.

[Beef Oven!]

I used to think of the word "reform" as being something positive. But when the so-called pension reforms are on the table, it's all about pays as little as possible while increasing the contributions. What the Coalition has done is to claim the existence of a black hole, where none exists. The government refuses to back its assertions with any figures. In the case of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, there was a review in the mid noughties, chaired by Lord Hutton. Changes were made, including an increase in contributions, and an agreement that if there were a shortfall, contributions would increase, on the promise that the figures would be published regularly.
When the Coalition came to power, they immediately set up a new commission for all public sector pensions, and then went on to make wild claims, but in the case of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, refused to publish the figures - Messrs Osborne and Gove were "not minded to do so". When the teachers put forward their estimated figure of a £45 billions surplus, the Coalition did not refute this; they simply ignored it and carried on with the hype, with Danny Alexander playing 1st trumpet. Then they bumped up the pension age again and demanded increased contributions.

Such has been the theft from the TPS that Robert Maxwell starts to look like one of the good guys.

You seem to forget the damage Gordon Brown and Labour caused to public sector pensions in 2006, or whenever it was.

[teamsaint]

Very broadly, teachers pay 9 % of their pre tax income, for which they receive one eightieth of their final salary as pension to a maximum of one half of final salary....in other words, pay in full for 40 years to get an index linked pension of half final salary. This would also give you a reasonable lump sum, which I think might be around one and a half times final annual salary.

Most private sector employees would bite your hand of for this deal I reckon.I would see it as a reasonable provision.

[Beef Oven!]

Very broadly, teachers pay 9 % of their pre tax income, for which they receive one eightieth of their final salary as pension to a maximum of one half of final salary....in other words, pay in full for 40 years to get an index linked pension of half final salary. This would also give you a reasonable lump sum, which I think might be around one and a half times final annual salary.

Most private sector employees would bite your hand of for this deal I reckon.I would see it as a reasonable provision.

It's always been a bit of a mystery to me as to why some people believe that the pay, terms and conditions and pensions in the public sector are anything other than pretty good.

[french frank]

I'm not sure how relevant this Guardian article is, but it dates from 2009 where 'government' means 'Labour government'.

This article also from 2009 has some interesting facts too.

[teamsaint]

It's always been a bit of a mystery to me as to why some people believe that the pay, terms and conditions and pensions in the public sector are anything other than pretty good.

Because until a while ago, perhaps 10/15 years ago, pay was markedly worse in certain areas for civil servants than in the private sector.

When I was a civil servant at the Inland Revenue, staff could easily leave after the excellent training and get better salaries in pretty much comparable jobs with accountants. From memory I would say that salaries in the private sector tended to be about 20 % higher, with broadly comparable benefits.
Civil service pensions really were fold plated back then, non contributory, and two thirds final salary.

As we know, in recent years, private sector wages have fallen behind public sector.

[Beef Oven!]

Because until a while ago, perhaps 10/15 years ago, pay was markedly worse in certain areas for civil servants than in the private sector.

When I was a civil servant at the Inland Revenue, staff could easily leave after the excellent training and get better salaries in pretty much comparable jobs with accountants. From memory I would say that salaries in the private sector tended to be about 20 % higher, with broadly comparable benefits.
Civil service pensions really were fold plated back then, non contributory, and two thirds final salary.

As we know, in recent years, private sector wages have fallen behind public sector.

I meant in absolute terms, irrespective of what's going on in the private sector with pay etc.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You seem to forget the damage Gordon Brown and Labour caused to public sector pensions in 2006, or whenever it was.

What damage was that? That was around the time when teachers' pensions were changed, but with discussion and compromise on both sides.

[teamsaint]

I meant in absolute terms, irrespective of what's going on in the private sector with pay etc.

If you work in the public sector, the pay of those in comparable private sector jobs is pretty relevant.

This is especially true for the great mass of public sector employees, who are on modest salaries. Obviously this all rather depends on there being a labour market in some kind of balance.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm not sure how relevant this Guardian article is, but it dates from 2009 where 'government' means 'Labour government'.

This article also from 2009 has some interesting facts too.

I remember these articles at the time. The figures were refuted, taking no account of inflation. There are no public sector pension funds - the governments just take the money, spend it as they wish, with an IOU to to the public sector workers, allowing for inflation. The figures quoted in the article did not take inflation into account.

[Beef Oven!]

What damage was that? That was around the time when teachers' pensions were changed, but with discussion and compromise on both sides.

NHS pension review consultation, 2006. Contained lots of little cost-improving salami-slices that the unions did not properly understand the impact of. For example, the widening of the use of actuarially reduced pension payments on voluntary retirements.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've just tried to reply to a post that has completely vanished.

Or perhaps I'm just losing it. :yikes: