 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
At least they have a contributory pension scheme....
Ooh, I get to have the whole family home on my birthday 🙂
Day out I reckon.
An affordable, contributory pension scheme. Its a political attack on the public sector. We should be making the private sector give their employees decent pension schemes not cutting the pensions of public sector workers. The pensions crisis is not the cost of public sector pensions - that is easily affordable. its the lack of private sector pensions - and who will foot the bill for that - thats right - the taxpayer will pay the meagre pensions of the private sector.
Teh condems will either have to back downor we will see industrial action that is unparalleled in the UK for decades
look after your own kids I'm having a day off!!
I never realised it was a childminding service
Or, just as a crazy idea, we all recognise that pensions were fine when (1) people lived until about 70 and (2) the baby boomers took out more than they paid in.
Neither of those things exisat any more, so we need to address our own provision for old age (including continuing to work beyond retirement, or just a large scale culling programme).
[i]continuing to work beyond retirement[/i]
Isn't that an oxymoron?
The pension problem is an issue for those in middle years who suddenly find they are facing a 'pension shortfall' and have relatively few years to make up the difference.
At least teachers have a fund - the police pension system is funded entirely from contributions with no fund at all - it's going to be a nightmare with falling police numbers and a large number of forced retirements.
I can see both sides of it. If I were in their position I'd fight to see what I already had wasn't eroded. On the other hand we can't afford it. Listening to the ATL spokes woman she did make some valid points and at the very least it seems to have been clumsily handled (as usual) by the government. She did rather shoot herself in the foot though when answering the interviewers question as to why teachers were any different to anyone else in seeing their pensions dwindle. She started off by saying teachers were on a two year pay freeze, so are practically all other workers.
Does sound though like yet another thing badly managed first by Labour and now being compounded by the condems. At least Dave will probably step in and personally listen to the teachers and make a big U turn. Makes you wonder if any of their policies are based upon principles.
Teh condems will either have to back downor we will see industrial action that is unparalleled in the UK for decades
Can't see that they can back down, governments have been promising all sorts of things we can't afford for years, it's just come to a head when the credit dried up. ourmaninthenorth makes a pretty valid point.
continuing to work beyond retirementIsn't that an oxymoron?
I'll have you know I am NUT and voted against strike action, despite the fact that I am going to loose out over all this... 🙂
[i]an[/i] oxymoron, not [i]the[/i] 🙂
My wife voted for. She can take the kids to the picket line with her 😉
On the other hand we can't afford it.
it is a contributory pension scheme paid for by teachers. There is an agreement in place that any shortfall will be met by increased contributions by teachers and not by "us".
Under the Government’s proposals, contributions would rise from 6.4 per cent of salary to an average of between 9.5 and 9.8 per cent by 2014/15.A teacher earning £35,000 a year would have to pay an extra £100 a month, while pensions would shift from a final-salary scheme to career- average.
so pay more and get less quite a hard sell wahtever your view is on this you cannot really expect those on the recieving end to not be annoyed with this.
I don't blame teachers walking out, Gove has made their careers hell.
I agree with tandem boy 😯
Can't see that they can back down, governments have been promising all sorts of things we can't afford for years, it's just come to a head when the credit dried up. ourmaninthenorth makes a pretty valid point.
Really? They've spent most of this year changing their policies because they were poorly conceived.
Simply simptoms of a larger problem, we have individuals in charge of our resources that cannot mananage resources.
We have a culture and way of life that see's massive waste by individuals and collectively.
What is required is a revolutionary philosophy and way of life!
We all need to be involved in claiming a better future for our species, not moaning when the idiots who step forwards and talk utter shite, cannot deliver.
Assholes = shit happening, simple!
Kaesae if your post had random caps lock i would give it 9 a it is 7 out of 10 as you almost make sense in parts
Simply simptoms of a larger problem, we have individuals in charge of our resources that cannot mananage resources.
They're not concerned with resources.
It's not the civil servants fault their terms have been so generous, but it is no longer affordable, so will have to be changed.
Everyone will have to accept that we will either have to:
a) work longer
b) contribute more into our pensions
c) get less back from our pensions
d) stop the NHS treating anyone over 70 to reduce the elderly population
e) a combination of the above
To be honest, I'm a civil servant, and I've not voted for strike action, and I don't know anyone who has. Most of us doubt we'll still have jobs beyond 2013 in our little corner due to proposed legislative changes, we really couldn't give a stuff about pensions in 20-30 years time!
Everyone will have to accept that we will either have to:a) work longer
b) contribute more into our pensions
c) get less back from our pensions
d) stop the NHS treating anyone over 70 to reduce the elderly population
e) a combination of the above
a)Crack down on tax evasion
b)Stop tax avoidance
c)Cut our military spending
d)All of the above
we really couldn't give a stuff about pensions in 20-30 years time!
And people retiring in 5-10 years?
Solidarity comrade! I'm in the NASUWT so won't be out on strike, although I'm all for it. My union line is now is not the right time, which I tend to agree with.
That's the way forward morecash, just accept what's coming. Now would you prefer to be lying down or bent over?
I'm in the NUT and I voted against. Obviously, selfishly, I don't want to lose out - which I inevitably will when compared to teachers who have retired recently, but I also don't want to strike. I quite like going to work.
At the end of the day, pensions for teachers will be cut in some way. We're not the worst off though.
I just want a nice quiet life, being with my family, doing the job I love (despite many ridiculous hoops I have to jump through), and riding my bikes.
post self-censored
Its not unaffordable! What is unaffordable is that the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill for all the pensioned private sector employees. teachers pay for their own pensions.
Its a disguised attack on the public sector - the politics of envy. Don't be conned
Fair enough. In the political arena, it isn't really good enough to 'put up and shut up.' I still like my job though. And my bikes. And my family (in that order!)
http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/m/9/Teacher s'_Side_Submission_to_Hutton_Commission_FINAL.pdf
[url> http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/m/9/Teacher s'_Side_Submission_to_Hutton_Commission_FINAL.pdf]click this no idea why above does not work[/url]
I give up
Argh ****in teachers.... :s be thankful you have a pension!
teachers pay for their own pensions.
Surely this is the point that should be shouted out above anything else?
junkyard, that makes interesting reading with lots of good bits in and amongst I especially like:
The real problem in UK pension provision lies not with public sector pensions but with the private sector where employers are increasingly seeking to evade their pension responsibilities to their workforce. We ask the Hutton Commission to take the opportunity offered by its remit to comment on that area and not restrict its views solely to the public sector pension schemes.
Oh and maxray, thanks for your considered contribution. Nob.
The real problem in UK pension provision lies not with public sector pensions but with the private sector where employers are increasingly seeking to evade their pension responsibilities to their workforce
Why doesn't the government go after...oh hang on.
snap!
Everyone will have to accept that we will either have to:
a) work longer
b) contribute more into our pensions
c) get less back from our pensions
d) stop the NHS treating anyone over 70 to reduce the elderly population
e) a combination of the above
A combination of the above was achieved when teachers' pensions were renegotiated a couple of years ago, to make them sustainable in the long term.
My understanding is that accrued pension rights will be protected, so those retiring sooner will have less pain than those with many years to come.
I'm not bending over, just pragmatic - personal and public finances in this country are in a mess, we are all going to take a hit in some form, even with these changes a lot of us in the civil service will still be in a better position than many in the private sector.
I'd sooner be part of the (unpleasant) solution, rather than part of the continuing problem.
If they want a better pension why don't they opt out of the government pension scheme and take out their own private one?
Oh yes, I think I know... would it be that the government one gives a better return for the amount paid in than any private pension could.
muffin-man I refer you to mine and lifer's previous post
muffin-man I refer you to mine and lifer's previous post
Not quite sure what you mean. I'm not on about the government pursuing private firms and forcing them to make pension provisions for their staff.
My point is that if a teacher is unhappy with their pension, what is to stop them going to their local financial advisor and saying "I'd like to start a pension please, and I'd like to pay in £xxx per month". Do they [i]have[/i] pay into a government scheme, or could they transfer those funds pay into a private scheme if they wished?
The point is the teachers are happy with their pensions which have been reformed to be[b] affordable and no burden on the taxpayer.[/b]
Unlike the private sector who make such poor provision for their staffs pensions that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab.
the-muffin-man - - don't be suckered by the moral panic created by the tories and the right wing press whos aim is to destroy the public sector.
Sorry, just spotted TJ's comment about this being "the politics of envy"
Who said he can't do irony!
If they want a better pension why don't they opt out of the government pension scheme and take out their own private one?
We [i]don't[/i] want a better pension; we're happy with the current one. It's the proposed changes which are the issue.
Here's another angle: would you want your (grand)kids being taught by a 70-year-old?
Here's another angle: would you want your (grand)kids being taught by a 70-year-old?
Older and wiser, why not? 70 today doesn't necessarily mean they're going to smell of wee.
I am a teacher, I work in the private sector, I calculated that with adjusted figures my salary has decreased by 60%. Count yourselves lucky and stop f*****g whinging.
muffin-man: sorry I thought your point was 'it's not fair, they get a better deal than I do' 😉 ....much like what don simon is saying above^
Older and wiser, why not? 70 today doesn't necessarily mean they're going to smell of wee.
I can just picture a 70 year old woman teaching a class of 36 7-year-olds...
I am a teacher, I work in the private sector, I calculated that with adjusted figures my salary has decreased by 60%. Count yourselves lucky and stop f*****g whinging.
Perhaps the private sector teachers need to stand up for themselves?
😆 That genuinely made me laugh.Perhaps the private sector teachers need to stand up for themselves?
surely , doing an MBA, you are a facilitator or trainer rather than a teacher...what do you teach as you said you worked with the 2nd biggest supermarket in the world?
Is intrigued but does not expect a serious answer.I
Headfirst, good retort with "nob" years of education have helped your language skills. 🙂 Personally I think teachers have a good deal. Good pay, good pension, good regular holidays, good hours. Yes they do a great job that only certain people can, in often trying circumstances but my they go on about their bad lot!
MBA? Who, me?
I teach Business English (aka talking crap) and train students in preparing and giving presentations in English (and ocassionally in Spanish).
f) We could turn all the old people into oil, thus providing us youngsters with a decent revenue stream for our pensions 🙂
I teach Business English (aka talking crap) and train students in preparing and giving presentations in English (and ocassionally in Spanish).
At what type of institution?
In the private sector.
Perhaps the private sector teachers need to stand up for themselves?
What would you suggest we do? You are aware of the reasons why my salary has dropped by 60%, aren't you?
RichPenny for president of the world!!!
My mum has put face cream on every day for decades, I bet we could just wring her out, not actually kill her, and get the best part of a gallon...that should do me for a week's commute...how many old folk are there? I'm gonna need a few...
In the private sector.
A private school or a business? I.e. are you a teacher or a lecturer or a trainer?
Perhaps we could develop an engine that ran on pulped pensioners? It would be remarkably ironic if humans turned out to be a slightly sustainable energy source!
MBA? Who, me?
I teach Business English (aka talking crap) and train students in preparing and giving presentations in English (and ocassionally in Spanish).
so not a teacher than in the sense it is being discussed here. actually a trainer at best in TEFL perhpas?
[i]Here's another angle: would you want your (grand)kids being taught by a 70-year-old? [/i]
Other careers are available! Do you have to be a teacher all your working life?
It's a privately owned school that is run as a business, I teach and I train.
Other careers are available! Do you have to be a teacher all your working life?
Unemployment is currently at 8%, I believe.
(I have no intention of teaching for another 34 years.)
Unemployment is currently at 8%, I believe.
In teaching or in general?
So not a teacher than in the sense being discussed here.
In general. So, not many other jobs to move to.
Only 8%, not too bad then.
You still haven't told me how we could stand up for ourselves or what you understand to be the reasons behind the sharp reduction in salary.
Strike
😆 (I assume [s]hope[/s] you're not being serious)
I calculated that with adjusted figures my salary has decreased by 60%. Count yourselves lucky and stop f*****g whinging.
i dont give a shit to be honest, has no impact on my views on my pension
i dont give a shit to be honest, has no impact on my views on my pension
You may just have convinced me to vote tory at the next election, thanks. Even though it might just have an impact unless Banco Santander don't pay UK tax into the UK coffers, their employees don't pay taxes. Who owns the BAA? What happens here will affect you there.
I imagine you call the tories selfish f****rs.
don simon - Member(I assume hope you're not being serious)
Why?
Because I'm self-employed.
EDIT: And not a good long term solution during the present crisis, killing the goose that lays the golden egg, etc.
Can someone other than TJ explain what the union is demanding? If the scheme is already affordable, and not government funded, why is the government so concerned about it that they are proposing changes?
Clearly there must be some link to taxpayers that the union is not being totally clear about.
We are recently informed we will be paying 15% more to receive 10% less up here.Allied to the fact that teachers have a life expectancy of 70 (according to the union rep) At least the English unions had the balls to take a stand, good on you.As awful as it will be,if we do not,then the government will just carry on removing the T&C's that they agreed to. And maxray, however it is spelt,it suits you.
dmjb4
My analysis whilst simplistic is basically true.
The NUT believes that our pensions are fair and affordable. The Government wants teachers to pay more, work longer, and get less. They are pressing ahead with unnecessary reforms despite the changes already made to the Teachers' Pension Scheme in 2007.The National Audit Office has confirmed that public sector pension costs are falling as expected due to the reforms already in place. Teachers are already paying more, the normal pension age has been raised to 65 for new entrants and employer contributions have been capped.
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has also been highly critical of the Government's pension strategy which they say is based more on public perception of public sector pensions than on actual figures.
Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers' union, said:
"The Government's unnecessary attack on public sector pensions has convinced NUT members that there is no alternative but to support strike action.
"It is disgraceful that the Government is pressing ahead with its reforms which will affect teachers' pensions. The Government knows that they are affordable. This is a policy which has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics.
"The NUT is party to the TUC negotiations with Government to protect public sector pensions. It is not too late for common sense to prevail and for these unnecessary changes to be stopped. It is in no one's interest to create a whole new swathe of people who are a burden on the taxpayer in old age.
"The NUT alongside TUC affiliated unions will do all we can to ensure fair pensions
The paper confirms the Government's intention to abandon the current teachers' pension scheme. It wants to introduce a new "career average pay" scheme, giving teachers massively less.They are suggesting you would only get 1/100 of career average pay for every year in teaching. This compares to the current scheme which gives you 1/60 of final pay, or 1/80 of final pay plus a lump sum payment, depending on when you joined the scheme.
Younger teachers would have to work until 68 for a pension worth less than half of their career average pay. Older teachers would earn far less pension between now and retirement. The Treasury proposals would mean you losing even more than the figures shown in the NUT pensions loss calculator. They show just how badly the Government's plans will affect our futures.
http://www.teachers.org.uk/pensions
Note the employers contribution has been capped - this is in the agreed changes in 2007. thus there is no excessive or open ended liabilty on the taxpayer. Any shortfall has to come from increased contributions from the employees.
Its purely a political move. The Tories allies in the press created a moral panic about public sector pensions to create a bogeyman and the government are now attempting to slay the bogeyman.
If it is a 6.5% contribution and a final salary scheme then there is no question of it being affordable without additional contributions from elsewhere - i.e the present system is not self financing based on current teacher contributions.
I've found this discussion interesting especially as I had a proper row with my father-in-law about my right to strike and how I should be lucky that "the private sector was bolstering up my public sector pension". I pointed out that, using his theory, as a tax payer I was paying twice for my pension, once from my wages and again as a tax payer. I also pointed out that I had signed up for one thing and was now being told that it would change and I could do nothing about it. Furthermore I noted that surely going to an average salary scheme was discriminatory against women who tend to take time off to raise kids and therefore have a lower average salary. Once F-i-L had finished sounding off about "that's your choice to take time off to have kids and not work" and wanted to know why his pension pot was low (apparently to prop up the public sector pensions) I'd had enough.
F-i-L runs his own pretty successful business with a number of employees, his, and their ability to earn high wages is greater than the average teacher whose salaries are centralised and capped. Yes I get better holidays but my (unpaid) working hours are longer. On average teachers have a shorter life span once retired than other retirees.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, yes I chose my job knowing full well the pro's and the con's...what I didn't really expect was to get right royally screwed again and again with no say on the matter.
no mefty - it has an employer contribution THAT IS CAPPED AND DEFINED so there is your other source - and if it goes into deficit then the teachers contributions will rise not the taxpayers.
~Edit - reducing the pension will mean more will need to get additional benefits as they do not get full pensions because of interrupted careers - so the taxpayer will pay then
That is debatable mefty can I see your figures.
There are employer and employee pension contributions 6.5% is wrong for starters
The point is the teachers are happy with their pensions which have been reformed to be affordable and no burden on the taxpayer.
Precisely, so this statement is rubbish - they are a burden to the taxpayer the current employer contribution is 14% per annum, more 2 times the teacher's.
TJ - that didn't really answer the question, it was just some clips from a union press release.
How have the actual terms changed? Should be less than a line for each e.g. for our work scheme:
I pay x%, work pays y%. No guarantees. When I retire the pot buys an annuity.
Please post before and after proposals for new teachers scheme in same manner so we can compare and assess.
sorry - you asked what the teachers wanted. There is info in the link on the changes.
They are suggesting you would only get [b]1/100 of career average pay for every year in teaching[/b]. This compares to the [b]current scheme which gives you 1/60 of final pay, or 1/80 of final pay plus a lump sum payment, depending on when you joined the scheme.[/b]Younger teachers would have to work until 68 for a pension worth less than half of their career average pay. Older teachers would earn far less pension between now and retirement.
* contribution increased from 6.4% to 9.3%
you can work out the cost and effect here
http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/12872
mefty the current arrangement does not alter the employer contribution. Can you stop telling me it is unaffordable and actually provide me with some evidence to support this view .