Larger pensions for Civil Servants

[tonywiltshire]

Civil Servants pensions are funded from state income and are dependent upon, in part, our Tax payments. I wish I could look forward to such generous payments yet they still want more, to be more honest their placards should read, “ give us more of your money”

[factor-fiction]

Civil servants will dispute that: they will claim they contribute to their pensions and that when they took the job the deal was they'd get a lower salary which would be boosted by an attractive pension scheme.

But as someone who has been in the public sector and private sector I can see that their scheme is far more generous than most in the private sector now enjoy. It's just not sustainable to have a scheme where you pay 6-7% of your salry or 35 years then expect to get around 60% of your final salary for 25 years in retirement.

I'm also conviced many don't undertsnad the concept of 'career average' rather than 'final salary' pensions and that existing pension benefits are preserved- it's just future arrangements that would change

[tonywiltshire]

I am in a minority of one in my household in not being a Civil servant; the other two are convinced they should be paid more and retire earlier.
Surely the concept of career average is not difficult to understand?

[Prudie]

You should check out your facts before you get so upset. The absolute maximum pension a civil servant can get is 50% salary after 40 years service and very few achieve that length of service. CS are complaining at the moment because after planning on their pensions the Govt is now both cutting it and increasing the number of years they have to work before they can draw it. They are not asking for more.

[tonywiltshire]

But the public are unable to afford larger payments.

[sara3]

I'm a civil servant and am expecting to pay at least £80 extra per month. I hadn't budgeted for that, I can't afford it, I'm a single parent and I don't claim benefits.

and we don't all get paid the salaries you're probably looking at.

[Slapshot]

....and so are most civil servants! How much do you think we earn?? Over 80% of civil servants earn less than £30,000, 63% of the total less than £25000. We have pay freezes in place, (not just under Cameron and his clowns), we are asked to pay more into the pension, to work for longer to get less of a payout.

It is the future we are concerned about and where their next attack on our total remuneration package is going to come.

[Slapshot]

@tonywiltshire - the public purse can't afford a lot of things, like letting the bankers away with the real taxes they are supposed to pay, like the society of scroungers out there who have no intention of working and contributing.

There's no priveledge in being a civil servant any more, the pride of "service" has gone, we've been shafted too many time by successive governments

[wolf63]

I was lucky to get a civil service pension based on final earning - I had to retire early on health grounds. I can assure you that it is not a 'generous' pension and I was on on a wage that I struggled to live on.

[tonywiltshire]

Slapshot on your figures 37% of Civil servants earn over the national average and most of the teachers I know are earning well over £30K. If the nation is unable to afford the generous pensions Civil servants enjoy why should those in the private sector, who have lost large amounts of pension, continue to assist them?

[factor-fiction]

It's happening in the private sector too: in my last private sector job the contribution rate was increased by 2%, retirement age went from 60 to 65 , it changed to career average, and penalties for early retirement were increased substantially. We were told: 'take it or leave it- reject it and you'll have no scheme'. Staff voted to accept

But I'm not suggesting civil servants should just accept it. They are right to fight for their benefits, but I suggest they also need to look at what is happening elsewhere and think maybe they need to compromise. The resulting pension scheme will still be one of the best around even if the changes all go through.

[factor-fiction]

Hi Prudie-
if your comments were aimed at me at i stand by them. If you are thinking of the teachers' scheme then, yes, prior to 2007 the maximum pension after 40 years was 50% of salary- and there was aguaranteed lump sum of 3 years' pension.
As I understand it (and I'm in the scheme- or will be again when I find another job) the scheme since 2007 is based on 60ths and has no guaranteed lump sum. So after 40 years you get 40/60ths= 2/3rds of salary. Retiring at normal retirement age after 35 years' service would give 35/60ths which is 58.3% (okay I exaggerated a little by rounding to 60%). That's my understanding.

[scotman]

I can't agree with the title of the question. I am not aware of anyone wanting larger pensions, only the pensions that were offered when they joined.

[tonywiltshire]

Larger than has been offered and larger than the Taxpayers can afford.

[factor-fiction]

Yes, the title was misleading but I see what point the OP is making.
I have spoken to some of the people who are in public sector schemes and I'm convinced that many do not understand the proposals. For example:
- some believe that the changes are retrospective,
- some believe the misleading scare stories of union leaders ("you'll be £100,000 worse off... ",)
- some see the move from 'final salary' to 'career average' as unfair, when in practice it is fairer for many people
- many are not aware of the removal /cutbacks in schemes in the private sector, and that the proposed terms still make it one of the best schemes around
- a mistaken belief that the pension terms offered when someone started a job should be guaranteed for life

The problems for the misunderstandings and bad feeling lie with the government for the way they have sold this and with union leaders. The present government should have made sure they also tackled the much more generous scheme for MPs. It also lies with the previous government who were not strong enough in tackling the problem earlier of Gordon Brown's tax raids on pension funds, increased life expectancy and poor performance of pension fund investments, when it was clear the schemes were not sustainable.

[Clanad]

This question addresses a large part of the governments of the worlds difficulty now. By that I mean, even here in the U.S. (but especially, from what I read, Greece) the problem is the taxpayers are supporting nearly three of anyone group of public servants receiving a government pension. Example; here, in the U.S., a teacher can retire at 20 years service at any age they avhieve the service requirement. Many of them are only in their 50's, some in their 40's. Their life expctancy is averaging high 70's. So, the school district (here, it would be a local and not national government) is paying for the teacher on the job, and nearly 2 others who are now retired. (Plus, often their medical services package).
And... that would be fine, I suppose, except they are nearly all unionized. So. in reality, it's the unions trying to protect their political power and own incomes (derived from the percentage of salary from the teachers) that is driving the government's financial problem in a severe reccesionary era.
The unions seem to hold even more power in areas of Europe... as mentioned, that of Greece, since it's been adequately demonstrated the unions and one in particular, backed by billionaire George Soros, that's driving the "Occupy Wall Street" mess here in the U.S. that's going on two months old now...

[boxtops]

We had a huge consultation in the NHS last year about the proposed changes to the NHS pension scheme, we were offered the option of staying on the old scheme (with certain benefits) or moving to the new one (with different ultimate benefits, but clearly described). For me it was better to stay on the old scheme, but anyone joining now will have no option to go on the new one. It's still good.
I agree - civil servants are not asking for more money in their pensions, they just don't want to lose what they were told they'd get when they signed up.
...and don't forget, the millions of civil servants like me are also taxpayers too, many at the 40% rate, so when you say that the public are paying for these via taxes, these very people are also putting their own money in via tax. It's not all sponging off the rest of the population.

[tonywiltshire]

The Civil Servants will get far more out of their Pensions than they contribute and the difference has to be made up by the Taxpayers who have often had their payments reduced, is this fair?

[boxtops]

We ARE the taxpayers though, tony, millions of us. We're only getting in our pensions the amounts which were promised to us when we signed up - I joined in 1997. Nothing less, and certainly nothing more. We pay towards it, a substantial chunk from my paypacket every month goes to my future pension - why should it be otherwise?

[tonywiltshire]

It does seem hard boxtops not to get what you feel you were promised but would you want to receive this at the expense of others who may be in more difficult circumstances.

[boxtops]

That's not the point from my perspective, tony - we have already paid into our pension fund, so has the employer - I'm not expecting anyone to put anything more in. I don't know where this theory is coming from.