| Pensions 10:14 - May 28 with 4858 views | chicoazul |
In an idle moment I reviewed my pensions.
According to my calculations if I retire at 67 per the current rules, with my work public sector pension and my old age pension I will retire with an income of 85% of what I earn now. I’ll be retired all being well for at least 15 years. I don’t earn much now but it’s enough and I’m happy.
My point is, this is surely unsustainable. Is this country completely screwed economically forever? |  |
| |  |
| Pensions on 09:57 - May 29 with 278 views | Axeldalai_lama |
| Pensions on 18:30 - May 28 by OldFart71 |
Maybe I was lucky. A time when jobs of all types were available and from teenage years doing potato , bean and any other sort of picking, through hotel work, being a weaver in a mill, warehousings and factory work i managed to never be out of work until my early seventies, paying tax and N.I. all the way through.
Maybe it's me , but I can't understand why so many that are capable don't work. Is it our benefits system ?
A few months ago I was listening to the radio. A guy came on and said he did pizza delivery, but had been told he could claim PIP and I presume other benefits which would give him £2,400 a month. A person who shall remain nameless who I know also gets PIP and other benefits. That person get's some free dental work. Has just been given two pairs of spectacles. Myself and my daughter estimate with all the freebies thrown in that this person's income amounts to £30,000 a year. They have also had catalogue debts of £2000 written off twice. They are single and spend more on food in a week than I do for myself and my wife. |
In no way excusing 'dossers', but I think one explanation is how times have moved on, as you allude to with the jobs, but across the board.
There isn't the provision at the bottom end to get a basic job and have a decent life as there was a few decades ago. Maybe that's a bit dramatic, almost definitely in fact. But in terms of buying a house or even access to social housing and council houses etc, it's all completely out of reach on the lower end, so it changes aspirations and the day to day completely.
So some, only some, will think, what's the point in working and literally achieving nothing, I'll be a 'dosser'. And others will work and spend more a week than you on food because, what's the point in saving £40 a week, £2k a year, where will it ever get me, do that for 15 years solid and maybe you'll get the average first time deposit for the cheapest area of the country. Or just enjoy a takeaway and a coffee or two right now.
And many people will forgo the takeaways and will work their behinds off and save and scrimp and all of that, and great credit to them. But as that aspiration becomes stretched and things like mortgages, adequate pensions and owning houses become more and more of a faint hope then it may become more and more difficult to motivate those who are needed to support the aging population that needs more and more taxes to carry on as it is.
Or maybe that's bollox and they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or similar. |  | | |
| Pensions on 10:01 - May 29 with 258 views | chicoazul |
Thank you boyos for the interesting and insightful answers. | |
| |
| Pensions on 10:04 - May 29 with 252 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 18:55 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ The public sector pensions crisis ended 20 years ago when final salary schemes as they were basically ended and contributions were upped”
Not strictly true - the public sector pensions deficit is estimated to be over 1.2trn (over 40pc of GDP). Technically the money doesn’t exist to pay them, it’s just a huge liability on the government’s balance sheet.
I agree the sentiment about MP pay rises - I think most of them are a waste of space, however it’s a largely irrelevant when compared to the >£130bn annual pensions bill. Again it’s not pensioners fault they’ve not paid enough into the system, but the young are paying for current pensioners to have a much better deal. Everyone wants nice stuff - but nobody wants to pay for it. If we continue borrowing with rising yields and our compounding debt we’ll need tax rises any way, so we may as well raise taxes and pay for things directly through tax receipts. |
You're right - most UK public sector pensions ARE defined benefit, so based on final salaries, so the cost is going to continue to rise.
I would be happy to may MPs more (but water down their generous pension provisions) in the hope you might attract better quality people, but the quid pro quo would be that the number of MPs is drastically reduced from the current 650. Don't get me started on the bloated House of Lords! t's not going to happen, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 10:30 - May 29 with 217 views | Churchman |
| Pensions on 10:04 - May 29 by Radlett_blue |
You're right - most UK public sector pensions ARE defined benefit, so based on final salaries, so the cost is going to continue to rise.
I would be happy to may MPs more (but water down their generous pension provisions) in the hope you might attract better quality people, but the quid pro quo would be that the number of MPs is drastically reduced from the current 650. Don't get me started on the bloated House of Lords! t's not going to happen, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. |
I don’t think that is right. Taken from the HoC Library:
These schemes were reformed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Key features of the new schemes included:
- pension benefits based on Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE).
- a pension age linked to the State Pension age for teachers, local government, NHS and the civil service; a pension age of 60 for members of the schemes for the police, firefighters and armed forces.
Career average scheme is a defined benefit scheme, but not a final salary scheme. As an average, it will pay out considerably less and for many at state retirement age.
The changes took effect in 2015. Those who had final salary schemes already had them frozen at that point and they were enrolled in the new scheme called Alpha for the remainder of their career or money purchase (private pension or defined contribution) if they wished.
The exception was those who were within five or ten years (can’t remember which) of retirement who could remain on the more advantageous scheme. Why? Because it was too late for them to do much about the shortfall the new pension would create.
MPs should be paid more, but they should not be allowed to pursue outside interests or use their political careers to make money when they’re finished for say 20 years. It should be well paid, but vocational. Not an excuse to line their expenses stuffed pockets.
House of Lords? In the bin. It should have gone years ago. Why on earth should a think as mince unelected sports person or somebody who sprung from the loins Lord and Lady Grabalot have the right to affect what happens in others’ lives? A second chamber, ok. Either elected in some sort of way, people pushed into it like Jury Service or a legal body like they have in America.
Alternatively, declare me Emperor and let me sort it. I’ll even get another cat, call it Incitatus and declare it Consul if you like. [Post edited 29 May 10:31]
|  | | |
| Pensions on 10:55 - May 29 with 161 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 10:30 - May 29 by Churchman |
I don’t think that is right. Taken from the HoC Library:
These schemes were reformed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Key features of the new schemes included:
- pension benefits based on Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE).
- a pension age linked to the State Pension age for teachers, local government, NHS and the civil service; a pension age of 60 for members of the schemes for the police, firefighters and armed forces.
Career average scheme is a defined benefit scheme, but not a final salary scheme. As an average, it will pay out considerably less and for many at state retirement age.
The changes took effect in 2015. Those who had final salary schemes already had them frozen at that point and they were enrolled in the new scheme called Alpha for the remainder of their career or money purchase (private pension or defined contribution) if they wished.
The exception was those who were within five or ten years (can’t remember which) of retirement who could remain on the more advantageous scheme. Why? Because it was too late for them to do much about the shortfall the new pension would create.
MPs should be paid more, but they should not be allowed to pursue outside interests or use their political careers to make money when they’re finished for say 20 years. It should be well paid, but vocational. Not an excuse to line their expenses stuffed pockets.
House of Lords? In the bin. It should have gone years ago. Why on earth should a think as mince unelected sports person or somebody who sprung from the loins Lord and Lady Grabalot have the right to affect what happens in others’ lives? A second chamber, ok. Either elected in some sort of way, people pushed into it like Jury Service or a legal body like they have in America.
Alternatively, declare me Emperor and let me sort it. I’ll even get another cat, call it Incitatus and declare it Consul if you like. [Post edited 29 May 10:31]
|
Thanks for putting me straight on public pensions. Yes, the liabilities are still open ended & unfunded, but at least they've tried to cap them, especially at the top level. No one needs a 6 figure annual pension.
Yes, if we pay MPs more, they shouldn't be allowed any outside interests while in office. Like you, I hate to see en ex-minister leaving in disgrace & 2 years later with several lucrative directorships & consultancies. However, what if an MP serves one 4 year term - surely he should be allowed to make a living? The devil is always in the detail.
Reform of the Hpuse of Lords is long overdue. At least the hereditary element has been reduced, but it's now a home for the PM's cronies & retired MPs. If it becomes elected, it will want the right to block bills so will affect how government works & then we have another 300+ full timers to feed. | |
| |
| Pensions on 13:07 - May 29 with 98 views | Churchman |
| Pensions on 10:55 - May 29 by Radlett_blue |
Thanks for putting me straight on public pensions. Yes, the liabilities are still open ended & unfunded, but at least they've tried to cap them, especially at the top level. No one needs a 6 figure annual pension.
Yes, if we pay MPs more, they shouldn't be allowed any outside interests while in office. Like you, I hate to see en ex-minister leaving in disgrace & 2 years later with several lucrative directorships & consultancies. However, what if an MP serves one 4 year term - surely he should be allowed to make a living? The devil is always in the detail.
Reform of the Hpuse of Lords is long overdue. At least the hereditary element has been reduced, but it's now a home for the PM's cronies & retired MPs. If it becomes elected, it will want the right to block bills so will affect how government works & then we have another 300+ full timers to feed. |
Yes, if an MP only lasts one term they should be able to make a living. But book revelations, appearing on company Boards because they have inside government contacts etc should all be banned for at least a period. I see it as little different to say an insolvency practitioner moving companies and being prevented from taking clients with him/her. Agreed, the devil is in the detail.
As for six figure pensions, I agree but the percentage of public servants who get that is tiny. Average pension is just under £10k. I know some senior civil servants negotiate their own contracts including pay and rations. I suspect pensions form part of that and nothing would surprise me. 15 years ago, one HMRC excom member was paid around £240k - double what the PM was being paid. Goodness knows what went into his pension. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
