Its all about working out a compromise. I think the public sector fully understand that any new pensions will be adjusted to suit. I think we could come to some sort of compromise where we say they have to pay more but for the same amount of time, and what they get out at the end was what they were orginally promised. I think they would honestly go for government reserves..ie: the public sector pensions, would pay this....so long as the government( as numerous have done, over the years of each political persusion) don't dip into it to pay for certain conflicts etc. Where do you think the money has come from to fund the falklands conflict...the conflict in the Balkan Region...the invasion of Iraq..and the conflict in Afghanistan !! Its called government reserves. Now in the past this was always topped back up with interest as the market place and investments generally were still paying out good rates. This is no longer the case for the the moment. Leave the government reserves alone and there is enough money to pay the pensions.
Dean,
What do you mean by the "The government reserves..ie: the public sector pensions, would pay this."?
Most of the public sector pensions are unfunded, so where does a "reserve" exist?
The money paid into the pensions by the public sector is in surplus..always has been. The government refers to this as reserves. Over the years the pension fund has performed well..ie: when shares were well funded and doing well. Even now the fund at the current rate would more than meet the pensions of the current workforce for up to at least 15 years, for every person. This is why the unions are so upset. The governments over the years have been happy to cream off the surplus in that reserve, for its own use. In fact alot of companies use the pension fund for their own use. One where I used to work used it to buy the building they worked in. They then paid that back like a loan, to the pension fund. The problem being with this if the company goes bust, and the building is sold , the fund very rarely gets all its value back. I am not saying there is anything wrong in its practise.....but the unions have clearly shown that the money is there. What the government wants is more contributions for longer, so they can use the surplus to help pay off the debt.
about the best I could find.....shows that the pensions are fully funded. This has been highlighted before in this thread !!
If you honestly think their is no reserves, where do we find the money to suddendly go to Iraq and Afghaistan from. I hardly think it was budgeted for !!
so where does all the money every public sector worker pays in pension contributions go....if their pensions are paid for by everyone else's tax ???
and here is another link saying different. Can trade links as long as you want.....fact is after a two year wage freeze...you were asked to pay more into your pension...for longer...and then get less out at the end....I think anyone would rightly feel that they have cause to moan and complain.
No one is trading links. You were making claims that were incorrect and I provided a link to help you understand where you were incorrect. I chose the link carefully, a fairly balanced piece from a 'lefty' newspaper. Hilton's article can be picked to pieces!
The government has confirmed that it will press on with changes to pensions for teachers and civil servants.
The announcement comes despite no agreement being reached with unions over the planned increase in contributions from many staff.
"The government has confirmed it is prepared to ignore the views of the vast majority of the respondents to its consultation on increasing contributions for civil servants, and will try to impose what it has planned to do all along,"said a spokesman for the PCS union.
So much for the 'Big Consultation' excercise, we knew what we wanted and are going to do it anyway approach perhaps ?
Pension funds typically invest in a range of things, from buldings to stocks and shares and commodities.
Bet if the teachers contributions had been invested in those over 35 years the 83K would look a whole lot bigger, maybe 10 times bigger. Plus some of it will still be growing whilst he is being paid out.
John
Dave, the Local Government scheme does not include teachers and also that scheme runs at a net deficit every year and has to be subsidised by taxpayers.
Ben, the figure of £37K was just a figure used to illustrate the pension entitlement. It was in no way meant to define a career peak, I'm sure many teachers earn a higher salary than that, I could have used a head master 's salary of £100K + which is what a union leader would have used to highlight 'fat-cat' salaries/pensions in the private sector.
As you have already acknowledged, there does need to be some reform in the public sector pensions. It is not the fault of the employees that their contributions have not been invested nor that past government have not fulfilled their side of the bargain by not paying it's share of the contributions but at least this government is trying to sort out the mess it inherited. Of course, why they have not just decided to take the easy option and ignore the problem, like all previous governments, leaving the problem for our kids and grandchilren to sort, only they know!
Good to see that progress appears to have been made in the dispute........with the exception of Mark Serwotka's PCS Union. Of course he had to struggle by last year on a salary of £89K and pension contributions of £26K. Nice to know we are all in it together!
