Public Sector Pensions

[flip_flop]

Teachers and other public workers are talking about 'fairness' and the fact that they don't want to be forced to increase their contributions and don't want to work beyond their current retirement age.

As I understand it the vast majority of their pension is paid for them out of the public purse.

Ignoring the point that I don't think we should be providing them with a pension at all - as I'm having to save for my retirement by paying into a private pension I don't see why they can't - if the reports are to be believed public sector pensions are among the best there are with many of them still being final salary and index-linked.

Am I missing something here?

Because I'm struggling to understand why they are moaning about having to contribute a little more and work a little longer.

[emmie]

Ellipse, not out to make any points, i am trying to understand this, who is the employer, i assumed that's the state, so if teachers put in 7 percent of salary, double is provided by the state, i have to admit i find it a trifle confusing.

"Teachers pay about 7% of their salary into their pension scheme and their employer pays about 14%. This adds up to 17.5% of their total compensation going into their pension scheme, i.e. it is fully funded from day 1 out of their own pay.

[Zeuhl]

em

All of our state pension schemes are Ponzi scams; paying today's pensioners with the current contributions.

If anyone but the govt did it they'd be jailed!

[emmie]

Zeuhl still not sure, but assumed that with 6 miilion people in the public sector thats a whopping pension bill.

[Zeuhl]

In the breakdown of govt expenditure i have (but not in front of me right now) there is a budget of £10 billion for teachers pensions alone.

I think the NHS pension spend is £15 billion pa

[emmie]

rather puts my piddly little yearly allowance to shame, and believe me small with a capital s

[landscaper2]

Sorry if it has been mentioned already, but this should have been dealt with and foreseen 12 or so years ago.
I have been self employed for many years and set up a pension plan to start drawing at 60 so that I could semi retire from a very physically demanding job. All went well until the end of the 90's when my pension pot(along with all others) crashed and to receive the same pension I would have to pay in until I was 70.
This is when someone (apart from me!) should have seen the unfairness looming. I have no argument with the government(me and you) contributing to employees pensions, but it is utterly wrong that they should retire before 65, while us mugs are having to carry on working and chipping in to 2 pension pots.

I do feel sorry for people in their 50's who now are having to contemplate an extra 6 years work, it hurts - I know because I was 50 when my insurance company tacked the 10 YEARS onto my pension plan. I've got used to it - they will to!

[rov1100]

You contribute all your life into a government pension but when you retire the tab has to be picked up by someone else. However when you contribute towards a private pension you build up your own pot and can choose an annuity.

in 30 years time the proportion of those working against those retired can be in the ratio of 2:1 Therefore the current system as outlined in the first instant is unworkable and those facing retirement then will be in dire straights.

Moral: contribute to your own pension!

[dave50]

Nobody in their right mind who works in the private sector could possibly support the strikers. so the chance of them getting support nationally is nil.