[Closed] Public Sector and their pensions

I think that's a good point TJ but it doesn't affect the liability issue does it? As I see it you're talking about different things in whether it's different to a private pension or not.

I think my concern based on how I understand it is that if there's isn't a consistent surplus (if there even is now - according to Z11 there's a significant defecit once you take out tax payers' money (proof Z11?) or just the fact that numbers paying in but not yet taking out were increased significantly) then it's not sustainable long term unless you accept that it isn't self funded (eg the tax payer keeps paying into it).

Toys19,

I think you'll find that selfish greed is pretty prevalent in the private sector as well. People are prepared, nay encouraged, to abandon their employer, their colleagues and their customers merely for a pay rise with all the associated costs and problems this may incur.

Also, I appreciate that many people are finding it difficult and 'share the pain' is the call of the day. I can, however, remember when the economy was doing well and mates of mine were getting well above inflation pay deals in the private sector, the govt saying that pay restraint in the public sector was needed to combat the effects of large private sector pay deals and ensure that inflation did not rise out of control. There didn't seem to be as much 'sharing the spoils' then as there is 'sharing the pain' now.

People are prepared, nay encouraged, to abandon their employer, their colleagues and their customers merely for a pay rise with all the associated costs and problems this may incur.

Are you saying public sector workers don't do this?

You will find the sharing of the spoils did occur, its called taxation.

Because in a private scheme the money has to be ringfenced and invested

Private scheme contributers (employer not employee)can take contribution holidays however when the the scheme is in surplus if they choose.

Clubber - the point is that alters fundamentally the contractual terms. In the private sector a part of the deal is that the money is invested safely - this bit is not there for the NHS - but we get a government guarantee instead / in exchange for the government using the money as revenue now

There will have been huge surpluses in the early years of the scheme - this along with more recent surpluses would if invested have ensured the sustainability of the scheme

Are you saying public sector workers don't do this?

You will find the sharing of the spoils did occur, its called taxation

Of course they do but probably not as much due to limited number employers. However I think it will rise as more private sector employers get involved and people look for the best deal.

As far as I can see most people are selfish to some extent and want to look after their own, pure altruism is very rare. The ways to achieve that are varied, some people vote with their feet and move jobs, others strike, others scheme and cheat etc.

I meant 'sharing the spoils' more like the 8% and £3000 bonus my mate got year on year in the good times, rather than the govt getting more revenue.

Clubber - as posted before, the proper figures direct from the NHSBA:

From the year 2000, Employer (ie. taxpayer) contributions into the "fund" have (in stages) increased from 4% of payroll, to 14% of payroll. So, the Government (you and me) is now paying in over three times as much as we were a decade ago (proportionatly, actually over six times as much fiscally)

Prior to that increase the NHS pension scheme was in deficit to the tune of several hundered million pounds per year.

There will have been huge surpluses in the early years of the scheme - this along with more recent surpluses would if invested have ensured the sustainability of the scheme

Yes, they would have but they weren't. That's not really an excuse for just blindly going along with a potentially massive liability in the future.

Basically, as I read it now, the pensions should (or maybe could) have been self-sustaining but based on where we actually are now, they're not. The solution to that is interesting really but based on what I understand now I don't think that you can claim that they're self-sustaining.

Of course there's the moral/ethical question over whether because they were previously in surplus (still waiting for figures on this) the people who paid at that time are owed by the tax payer (who took the surplus) since potentially they were being promised a benefit worth considerably more than they were paying in (so while it was sustainable at the time, it was only long term on what sounds to me like a pyramid scheme).

Or maybe I'm just totally wrong 🙂

TJ - you are conflating two questions, the first is how much am I entitled to and the second is does the payer have the financial wherewithal to pay it.

The answer to the first is no different between public and private sector. The second is.

rather than the govt getting more revenue

yes but when the govt was getting the tax revenue it allowed Messers Brown and Blair to woo the voters by overpaying the public sector with all the cash they thought they had sloshing around. So the public sector got the results of the boom, now they ahve to take some of the pain. Ok so public sector only got a few percent increase, well they need to take a few percent decrease now. Private might have got bigger increases and are suffering from consequent decreases now. I just don't see why the puiblic sector should be protected from the recession.

Of course its morally and ethically wrong - I have paid for my pension, the money has been spent instead of being invested for my pension, the reason the future projection looks to be in deficit is because the predictions are based on less staff being paid less so lower contributions. So because the tories intend to privatise the NHS I get my pension cut?

And the government want me to pay more and get less benefit so a wages but the extra I pay will go towards the deficit not to paying for my pension?

Its theft on a scale that make maxwell look OK

No mefty - you are failing to understand the basic and fundamental difference between and investment funded private scheme and a revenue funded public scheme backed by the government.

I meant 'sharing the spoils' more like the 8% and £3000 bonus my mate got year on year in the good times, rather than the govt getting more revenue.

Where did Osborne get the claim that public sector pay increased by twice the rate of private sector pay over the last four years?
Maybe he's been selective with his sample as you have?

Of course its morally and ethically wrong - I have paid for my pension,

Thats a tricky one TJ. How much have you actually paid and is this what you will get back? I think what you mean is that you have made a contribution as do many people. How that contribution is turned into a larger or smaller guranteed future income is a different matter.
I hope to get more than I have put in thats why I didnt put it under the bed.
The argument appears to be that your contribution turns into a significantly larger pension later than many in the private sector who are not on final salary schemes.

TandemJeremy - Member
Of course its morally and ethically wrong

I tend to agree actually though only regarding what you've already paid towards, not ongoing accrual of pension benefits. I'd be inclined for what you get out to reflect the benefits you were offered at the time but that the benefits are reviewed now to reflect what's being discussed - eg a deficit in the future (or now). That sounds fair to me.

And the government want me to pay more and get less benefit so a wages but the extra I pay will go towards the deficit not to paying for my pension?

Well that's really about the part of your pension you're paying towards now even if there is no 'pot' there's still a defined future liability. If as is claimed, there's actually a deficit at present or more importantly there's a significant difference between what you're paying in and getting out and that's due to continue then I don't see it as unreasonable for any surplus you pay now to go back to the government to balance out what is being paid in.

Out of interest, the claimed 14% being paid in by the government - what value is that in relation to the extra costs being proposed to the pension members?

I have spelled out the differences throughout this thread and explained the rationale for them, but then I am capable of analysing financial risks and know how to manage them. You can continue to live in your own little world where the Tories are out to get you and where no doubt, another fundamental principle of economics and finance can be ignored, the existence of the economic cycle, so that boom and bust can be abolished.

Where did Osborne get the claim that public sector pay increased by twice the rate of private sector pay over the last four years?
Maybe he's been selective with his sample as you have?

Was talking more than 4 years ago, I mean the real boom times when NuLab was doing well and GB had ended boom/bust for all times.

The real issue is this:

I am a nurse and under the current scheme will get a pension of around £8K pa at 60. With the proposed one I might get a bit more but will have to put £200ish a month in.

Lets say I am going to get £10k which is about £200 per week but will have paid in the £200 per month for the next 21 years.

State pension is at the moment £132 per week so in comparison what I pay only gives the difference.

Reckon I might be better off just enjoying my cash and hoping that theres some welfare state left (or my kids get really rich and look after their old dad).

No mefty - you keep attempting to say it the same as a private sector one when it clearly isn't there being a number of fundamental differences.

a private sector pension is paid from an invested fund

The NHS scheme is paid from revenue

teh NHS scheme is guaranteed by government.

these are fundamental differences that you simply want to ignore.

TJ, to be fair, I think you're misunderstanding him. I don't think he disputes those points or is saying that the NHS pension is identical to a private one, what he's disputing is that there's somehow no consideration for liability just because there's no pot. For me, liability is the key issue and in that sense, no different from a private pension even if there isn't an actual pot of money to cover it - it's still something to consider.

Glad to see this threads still going well. I'll call by tomorrow and check if you've got it all sorted by then. No fighting, now!

Hey, binners, I'm finding it particularly funny as this was the second post of the thread

clubber - Member
oh god, no!

just look up TandemJeremy and half the threads he's been on to save having yet another unproductive discussion on this.

🙂 Mind, I am actually learning something here.

I am not misunderstanding him at all- I see the point he is making but its irrelevant.

this "liability" has only arisen because of the unique nature of the scheme. If it had been like a private scheme with the contributions being invested then there would be no liability that was unfunded.

So he cannot treat the future liabilities the same as a private scheme because the past contributions were no used in the same way as a private scheme.

You cannot compare chalk and cheese

You cannot compare chalk and cheese

You can. But you're best to only eat one.

You can review the ongoing accrual of benefits which is what I said above - people should get the benefits they were promised up to this point, the same as if they left the NHS now. The debate should be about what pension they should accrue going on from here. That's a perfectly reasonable debate to have IMO.

Clubber - that debate has been had - all new entrants are going on the new scheme which is sustainable

but does that mean that people who were already on the pension - eg you - continue to accrue a pension benefit as before? If so, I still see that as an issue based on what's been discussed here.

Why? the government took my contributions and spent them. If they hadn't done this and were not basing future projections of income on reduced contributions from a decreasing workforce and a decreasing payroll then this "deficit" would not be there.

OK, so your position is that the future projections are wrong and therefore the future deficit won't actually happen so that the liability is zero? I'd be interested to see how different the projections have to be for that to be the case.

Otherwise, I don't see it as unfair (annoying but not unfair) if the current pension scheme is stopped, you get exactly the benefits you were promised up to this point (same as if you left the NHS now) and then there's a different pension scheme that follows a sensible line on benefits payable against liability.

There will have been huge surpluses in the early years of the scheme - this along with more recent surpluses would if invested have ensured the sustainability of the scheme

Do you have proof of this, any figures which support your assertion?

which years was it in surplus, which years was in in deficit?

repeated assertions that there "will have been" amount to nothing - facts and figures please TJ.

What was the employers and employees contribution rate throughout the history of the scheme, that led to these huge surpluses that should have been invested? as far as I can see, the only reason for the current surplus is the tripling of the employers contribution since the millenium.

No clubber - I am saying the future projections are pessimistic.

Pessimism is considered accounting good practice - take the negative, don't assume the positive. If those rules had been followed by the banks...

regardless, how different do the assumptions have to be to forecast a surplus?

And I'm saying that your historical claims are wildy optimistic TJ, but you don't appear to be very keen on backing them up for some reason 🙄

Why? the government took my contributions and spent them.

I think you'll find they're doing that with all of us that pay NI without future guarantee of contribution rates or payouts

Clubber - if only I could have put it so succinctly, restores my faith in my ability to write intelligibly.

The overiding point remains that the fundamentalstarting point of pension liability management is that you evaluate your long term liabilities (ignoring new joiners) that you have incurred, incomings and outgoings in any one year are only inputs into this process.

Quite so. It's a pity that Thatcher didn't see this when she decided to tax pension scheme surpluses and allow companies to take contributions holidays. Cue downturn in the stock market and the concomitant closure of schemes, something that should've been unnecessary.

Guys, TJ will just not agree with you, he doesn't want to. You've explained to very well, but he's not prepared to understand that.

He just wants whatever it was he was promised 25 years ago.

Shame he's not got experience of the outside world, as he'd realise that only history is fixed, the future can change.

I still beleive that the Govt should close down all public pension schemes, honour the agreed benefits (to date), and start from a fresh with a more 'sustained' approach - for all.

Quite interesting to see TJ happy that his new collegues are getting a worse deal, from now, than he will get - comradeship in action? Oink, Oink...

Nice to see the insults coming in - shows the paucity of your arguenets again

Its really rather unpleasant the delight you have in this governments spiteful destruction of public sector pensions. Still - business as usual from the usual right wingers

Does that include me because it seems I don't agree with you TJ? I have to say that having read up on it now, I think that your argument about long term self-sustainability doesn't stack up. Can you provide the figures that Z11 has been asking for to back up your claims?

Agreed though, no need for the insults - TJ had thus far held off, so unnecessary.

TJ - Its not an insult, just a reading of the posts you've made

And I'm not a right-winger, far from it - I'm labour, but please notice the small 'l'. Old fashioned and believe in pragmatism and realism.

Like you I am mad about what has happened with my (various) pensions over the years, but it doesn't get me anywhere been mad...

I've Equitable ones (less said about that the better), deferred final-salary and cash ones - and we haven't even got onto what annuity my cash will buy. This is another area where a final salary schemes win-win - have you seen the reductions in this area recently?

And even if the Govt had invested your money, it still doesn't mean there wouldn't be this discussion - and returns vary, and as the phrase goes 'you can't buy history'.

No clubber - you appear to be actually listening and thinking about the issues -a rare thing on here. I disagree with some of your conclusions but thats OK

Phew. Wouldn't want to be slurred with lazy rightwinger stereotypes... 😉

TJ - not going to argue you're right or wrong, but I have been a public sector pension trustee. I do however have a question:

As the variables governing pensions assets and liabilities change pretty much daily, you're asking taxpayers to insulate you against that risk. Fair enough, it is a viewpoint, but rather than argue about entitlements, how would you go about persuading the large body of private (or no) pension holders and taxpayers that they should take your risk as well as their own?

oldbloke - again you are looking at this as tho it was an investment fund - it is not. (NHS) there is no "risk" associated with it as there is no investment fund that can go up and down.

Its a far smaller amount of money involved that the amount of subsidy given to the very rich in tax relief on their pensions.

Its a contractual entitlement.

basic fairness - we took lower salaries in anticipation of having decent pensions

There is no cash saving as all the reduced pensions will mean is that a greater sum of benefits will have to be paid out

tahts a few reasons

there is no "risk"

There is, it is known as longevity risk or in plain words the risk that the pensioners live longer than anticipated when the contributions were set.

mefty beat me to it...

I was very specific in referring to liabilities. It doesn't matter if a scheme is funded or not, it still looks at its liabilities and if it thought that on average it was going to have to pay a pension for an average of 10 years but now thinks that is going to be 15 years it looks at how to deal with that shortfall. That's risk and is the biggest risk in pensions management - life expectancy - and that's what you're asking taxpayers to cover.

So, again, how would you ask them? Given your contributions on other threads where you've pointed out the small % of higher rate taxpayers, your point on the rich is somewhat diversionary as you're speaking mostly to basic rate payers. Go on, sell them the deal.

As a former FD of a public sector body, I have to disagree on the salaries point being universal (although valid where there is a differnce) - plenty of salaries at or close to the private sector where I was. But, even where different, the pensions benefit far outstripped the salary shortcomings.

[img] [/img]

TJ - you're being disingenuous again regards there being no "fund" - Calculations on the affordability of the pension scheme are made on four yearly Actuarial reports. Which are based on the use of a ‘notional fund’ as if all income from the start of the NHS Pension Scheme had been invested.

And before you tell me I'm talking rubbish, I'll be glad to point you towards the NHSBSA report that confirms it 😉

richmars - Member

Julianwilson,
I have worked as an engineer in modern hi tech companies for about 30 years. I have had a number of fairly senior positions, not one had a company car, or gym membership. I've been to a few trade shows, but I don't think the NEC is much of a perk. This is not unusual in the private sector.
Do you really believe everyone has free cars? Obviously some jobs have cars and perks, but I'm sure the vast majority don't.
Edit: And I had a 25% pay cut last year, just to keep the company afloat.

Richmars, (I have reread my post here and I don't want iot to sound like a 'my job's harder than yours for the money' willy-waving contest but I fear it will anyway 🙁 )

...my badly-made point was that the public sector pension is seen by most who pay into it as mitigating against a lower salary relative to qualifications, experience, responsibility and stress. Much like some folk see a company car as being 'worth' some of their pay which they would otherwise spend on a private car.

You do I am sure get paid according to the complexity, stress and risk of your job as well as the qualifications and experience required for it. My brother in law is the same age as me and has been in his field the same length of time I have. He is a degree qualified engineer of the 'sony wall of lcd screens' wierdy electronic type. His job is complex and would require a very bright graduate in engineering to understand the finer points. He works 40 hours a week and usually gets flexi if he stays late to get a project in. If you substitute 'twiddly electronics' for 'immensely fragile psyche of the abused teenager' we are so far quite equal on complexity, qualifications, years of service/experience and 'baffling people that ask you too many questions about what you do'.

On the other hand, unlike my job, he has no professional registration to consider, no risk that someone will die on his watch and under his direct (or even indirect) responsibility, no risk of him losing his registration through his acts or omissions and unless he loses his rag and stabs a colleague, no risk of actual criminal proceedings through his acts or omissions. Like you he doesn't have a company car [b]yet he earns £13k a year more than me.[/b] The 'stress and risks/perils' of my job are all also present for the overwhelming majority of police officers, radigraphers, nurses, social workers, soldiers (minus the professional registration bit) and teachers (minus the death but very much including the 'criminal proceedings' bit) amongst others.

Richmars, I expect you [s]are[/s] were paid commensurate to your qualification, skills and experience as well as stress it causes you and the risk of you geting it in the neck for it all going terribly wrong (I appreciate that 'terribly wrong' in engineering could be any point on a very broad spectrum from mild peril through to huge tragedy depending on what it is you engineer, but the greater the risk to the public or responsibility for this risk, the more that is reflected in your salary, much like in my work).

If your actual job or a similar one exists within public service, (as opposed to being contracted at great expense to the taxpayer to provide a service or product for a public body!) it is almost certainly paid significantly less than the job you are in now, at least before you accepted a 25% pay cut 🙁 . In the NHS this is the complaint of our own engineers, occupational therapists, psychologists, PA's, payroll and IT staff to throw out a few examples, who routinely see very similar or identical roles to their own advertised in the private sectormminus our spanky nice pension but at at attractively higher salaries.

Bottom line: The pension [s]is[/s] was one reason to stay with the lower pay.

With all due respect, some jobs just pay more than others so you haven't really given a very good example. I'm not poor by a long stretch (TJ would say I was minted 🙂 ) but typically lawyers earn lots more than me for the same amount of work, risk and experience.

Incidentally one other point to consider is that the salaries that are advertised are often quite different to what people actually earn but people only ever see the top figure thus distorting their view of what salaries are actually available elsewhere.

[i]Engineer in private sector, salary up to £40k[/i]

Really means

[i]we'll pay £40k in exceptional circumstances but will far more likely pay £30-£35k particularly in the current economic climate.[/i]

We come up against that in the private sector too with employees claiming that they could earn more elsewhere but when you compare actual salaries paid, it tells a different story.

Personally I think anyone earning over £42k a year shouldn't get tax breaks on pensions as they are in the super elite rich top 10% of the country.

[i]Personally I think anyone earning over £42k a year shouldn't get tax breaks on pensions as they are in the super elite rich top 10% of the country. [/i]

you forgot the 😉

So all of those who are complaining about possibly in the future having to pay small sums to top up the pensions of the public sector going to also be happy to loose the much larger subsidy to the private sector pensions of tax breaks?

Tax breaks on pensions for the richest few are 2-3 times as much per year as the potential shortfall on public sector pensions. Tax breaks for all private pensions are much much more than this

so - end tax breaks on private pensions completely?

Tax breaks on pensions for the richest few are 2-3 times as much per year as the potential shortfall on public sector pensions

Figures to support this claim please.

you could make that argument but since there's no liability issue with a tax break, what's the relevance to this other than a lazy attempt to make emotive point scoring comments?

[i]Quite interesting to see TJ happy that his new collegues are getting a worse deal, from now, than he will get [/i]

Did I miss TJ's answer on this?

TJ - love the way you ignore the bits you don't like.

Forget the "richest few" and other such generalisations. Provide information on the benefits from the scheme you object to having imposed on you vs those from a money purchase scheme with the same employee contribution and the rates employers are about to have to provide under the latest Pensions Act.

Then we can debate the specific merits of your complaint and it may help you articulate why taxpayers should cover your risk.

Talking tax breaks is again a distraction from your desire to have others cover your risk, but to answer your point: Remove the tax incentive and you remove the merit of a pension plan.

In conclusion?

TJ - this is a lifestyle choice for you, you don't need to work in the public sector

clubber - Member

you could make that argument but since there's no liability issue with a tax break, what's the relevance to this other than a lazy attempt to make emotive point scoring comments?

It shows the massive hypocrisy

It cost the government 10 billion a year to give tax breaks on the pension funds of people earning over £150 000 pa but would only cost 4 billion a year to meet all the projected shortfall in all public sector pension funds.

It puts it in perspective

so I ask again - those of you that think public sector workers should loose their modest pensions do you support an end to tax relief on private pensions?

Remove the tax incentive and you remove the merit of a pension plan.

Same applies - make public sector pensions worthless and there is no incentive to be in them

It cost the government 10 billion a year to give tax breaks on the pension funds of people earning over £150 000 pa but would only cost 4 billion a year to meet all the projected shortfall in all public sector pension funds.

According to the Guardian, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/mar/07/taxing-the-rich-pensions-taxed?newsfeed=true ]here, [/url] removing tax relief on earnings over 150k would only bring in 840 million a year.

Quite a significant shortfall compared with your claim of Ten Billion, isn't it TJ?

However its nice to see you finally conceding there is a projected shortfall in public sector pensions of *four thousand million pounds* a year, most people would think thats a problem, the type of thing you might want to tackle.

I also think its an interesting psychology to say that If the government does not take something off you thats rightfully yours, then they're giving you a break - next time someone breaks into your house and steals the telly, you should maybe thank them for giving you the DVD player...

Umm to quote myself frrom another thread

Boys, just remember TJ isn't an engineer or a scientist, he is a nurse. So stop getting your knickers in a twist every time he says something. What TJ says is not actually a fact, set in stone or golden, it's most likely poorly informed bullshit. So the simple solution is to just ignore or dismiss him and not to pander to his ego by getting caught up in one of his pedantic argue fests.

But there is - the employer covers so much more of the risk in a public scheme that you gain that benefit. The benefit of a public sector pension is not dependent on the tax status of employee contributions - it is in its expression in terms of pension payment

If a money purchase scheme delivers nothing through a market collapse just as you price the annuity, there's no fallback.

of course there's hypocrisy. same as big companies avoiding huge amounts of tax while the relatively small value of welfare cheats is hyped.

But that's not the point being discussed and you're just diverting because you seem to be unable to justify your statements about the self-sustainability of the NHS pension.

No oldgit -there is no risk - a risk is unforeseen. Nothing here is,

clubber - I accept that there is a possibility that the NHS pension scheme may need a small amount of government support. I do not think this is unreasonable given the billions that have been taken out of the scheme by governments and given that the scheme has already been altered to reduce liabilities to a sustainable level.

Reducing pensions further will not produce savings as people will become eligible for benefits as well

I merely point out that even including the worse performing pension schemes the subsidy required is far less that the amount of subsidy given to a very small amount of rich people for their pensions.

so yoiu want to remove a 4 billion a year subsidy from millions of people an leave a ten billion subsidy for a much smaller grump of people who are much better off.

The teachers pension scheme has contributed 46 billion to the exchequer more than it has taken out for example

From the poor to the rich.

The government even has admitted that these extra contributions will only be used to pay off deficit - they are intending to get 2.8 billion a year in extra contributions to use to pay off the deficit.

TandemJeremy - Member

"Remove the tax incentive and you remove the merit of a pension plan."

Same applies - make public sector pensions worthless and there is no incentive to be in them

Which is of course the aim here - make the pensions so unattractive that people opt out then the schemes collapse

so yoiu want to remove a 4 billion a year subsidy from millions of people an leave a ten billion subsidy for a much smaller grump of people who are much better off.

The guardian has already shot down your ten billion figure TJ

I see you're still avoiding backing up any of your claims with figures...

so we're back to you needing to provide figures for the claimed big surpluses taken by the state and the claimed small subsidy required in the future.

ooh and I have no issue with reviewing pension tax breaks for the seriously rich but once again it has zero relevance to this discussion so stop diverting.

clubber - Member

With all due respect, some jobs just pay more than others so you haven't really given a very good example.

Read the whole post clubber:

If your actual job or a similar one exists within public service, (as opposed to being contracted at great expense to the taxpayer to provide a service or product for a public body!) it is almost certainly paid significantly less than the job you are in now, at least before you accepted a 25% pay cut . [b][b]In the NHS this is the complaint of our own engineers, occupational therapists, psychologists, PA's, payroll and IT staff to throw out a few examples[/b][/b], who routinely see very similar or identical roles to their own advertised in the private sector mminus our spanky nice pension but at at attractively higher salaries.

If a car was important to you, you might consider a job that paid a little bit less than other similar ones, but provided you with one for your personal use. A pension is important to some people and they have accepted lower wages in light of a great pension. Take away your company car and you might expect a bit back from your employer. Public servants are having their wages [s]frozen[/s] cut relative to inflation for three years and now the government wants to charge them for the 'company car' too. Give me back my £3k that I have lost in wage freezes and I might feel a bit better about putting some of it into my pension.

HTH.

clubber - sources given in earlier posts and plenty out there on google.

Why does the tax breaks have zero relevance? It shows the massive hypocrisy here. I don't see any of those calling for cuts in public sector pensions also calling for an end to tax relief on private pensions.

It really is rather amusing if very sad how much the tory press and tory party have been able to sell the line that public sector pensions are unaffordable.

Effectively the tories want to put an extra tax on public sector workers of 3% (its tax as it will go directly to the exchequer not into pensions) At the same time here will be a salary freeze. At the same time they want to reduce the pensions payable by a huge amount despite the fact most of the schemes have already been revised to reduce pensions dramatically

They are happy to spend the surpluses from the pension schemes but not happy to make any shortfall up

you're confusing need/want with a lifestyle choice here TJ

TJ, you may think I'm a git, but it isn't in the username.

You've been told what the risk is by more than one contributor, so until you're prepared to acknowledge such significant components of the debate nothing else from you is worthy of consideration.

I don't know what teachers pension scheme you're on about - I know of at least one funded one. Do you mean the Royal Mail scheme which hit the news recently and generated headlines like that? That's a scheme in deficit no matter what absurd public accounting policies show otherwise.

Anyway, enough of your diversions. Answer the questions and provide the evidence.

zero relevance to this discussion. Raise a new topic about it and I'll happily contribute. You're raising it because you've failed here at least to justify a lot of your key claims.

Disappointing because previously I reckoned you were probably right on self-sustainability but you've convinced me otherwise now.

Why does the tax breaks have zero relevance? It shows the massive hypocrisy here. I don't see any of those calling for cuts in public sector pensions also calling for an end to tax relief on private pensions.

This government like many before it will screw over those that would never vote for them anyway before they start messing with their own supporters. 😕

Small difference being that plenty of public servants regret having voted lib dem (I include myself here, mind you the Conservative candidate got in as usual in my constituency anyway) and inadvertently giving rise to what amounts to a conservative minority in government acting outside their election manifesto within mere months of the election.

Jota everyone might be ignoring your comments but you made me laugh out loud.

Phew - been away all day celebrating b'day. Thank goodness I haven't been following all of this instead. TJ, you make some valid points about the folly of the current system and then confuse it by saying it doesn't need reform - bizarre? Then accuse people of not understanding the basics of NHS and other pension funds when they clearly understand it better than you, fail to grasp that surplus does not equal sustainable and then lose any real credibility with this line:

TandemJeremy - Member

Which is of course the aim here - make the pensions so unattractive that people opt out then the schemes collapse

That is simply absurd and simply obscures any of your valid points. If you really think that the government and its advisers (Hutton etc) have the over-riding strategic objective of seeing then NHS pension scheme (sic) collapse, then there is little if any point in debating the subject.

Like any pyramid scheme, there is more likelihood of collapse from the basic fact that it is based on shocking foundations than any perceived (or otherwise) political objectives.

Oldbloke - sorry - slip of the keyboard - there is a couple of varieties of oldgits on here and I got you uconfused. No insult intended.

I do mean the teachers pension fund

The NUT has calculated the total payments into and from the TPS over the period 1923 to date, using its official valuation reports and accounts. Adjusting these figures in line with GDP growth shows that at least £46.4bn more in current prices has been paid into the TPS in contributions over the years than has been paid out in pensions.

http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/14349

NHS is the same - this is why is immoral to do this pensions robbery - a variety of governments has taken surpluses and spent them - now that money could have been used to cover deficits its not there. We have already paid once - now they want us to pay again - and even worse the government has acknowledged the extra payments will not go into pensions but into paying of the government debt

Teamhurtmore - are you really that naive? Of course the destruction of the public pension schemes is a part off the aim - and people on here even the knowledgeable ones cannot grasp the difference between and investment funded private scheme and a revenue funded government backed scheme.

No private investor would be allowed to spend the funds!