LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWell, duh, cause it's, like, an occupational pensions scheme with, you know, employer contributions. Are you suggesting it's a completely exceptional arrangement?!Originally Posted by patslatt
Well, duh, cause it's, like, an occupational pensions scheme with, you know, employer contributions. Are you suggesting it's a completely exceptional arrangement?!
Key points in the Times article:Is that really the case or are you just making it up? I am unaware of any actuarial review or cashflow projection of any UK public sector pension scheme which has been undertaken since the reform process was completed. Should I contact the actuaries to the main UK public sector pension schemes (Hewitt, Bacon and Woodrow in the case of the civil service or the Government Actuary's Deptartment in the case of the other schemes) for details or are you just making this up?
Right, so your knowledge of this area is only slightly more than zero (and comprehensively proves how dangerous very little knowledge can be).
[] For every £1 that private sector workers put into their pensions, they will have to pay £2.99 in present and future taxes to finance public sector pensions (even though public sector workers are only a fifth of the total work force),according to actuaries Watson Wyatt.
Right, so back to my questions:
(1) Does this indicate that private sector employees contribute too little to their own pension schemes or that public sector schemes are too generous (or even a little bit of both)?
(2) Do these projections take into account the recent reforms to UK public sector pension schemes (careful in answering this, you may have to contradict yourself)?
I'll throw in a third
(3) What has this got to do with Ireland?
Defined contribution plans in the private sector may or may not receive contributions from employers.Well, duh, cause it's, like, an occupational pensions scheme with, you know, employer contributions. Are you suggesting it's a completely exceptional arrangement?!
Defined benefit plans based on final years' salary in the private sector may or may not compensate for loss of purchasing power in pensions from inflation . In America and probably in Britain,most small and mid-size companies give little or no adjustment for inflation,so that the pension become very devalued after 5 years. Meanwhile private sector workers will have to contribute a big share of their taxes to help fund the far more generous state sector employee pensions.
Right - except in the UK it is a statutory requirement to inflation-proof pensions in payment (even preserved awards). So you're talking a bit of nonsense here.
After a few too many Singapore Slings my sarcasm-levels are probably set way too high - you have a point (public sector pensions are a very large liability and shouldn't be ignored by the government) but you seem, to me, to be blinded by predjudice against the public sector in general and handicapped by ignorance of the pensions system in the UK (which you are trying to use to make a point about Ireland). Try opening your mind a little.
As for (1) above, public sector schemes are too generous to the extent they are funded heavily from taxes instead of employee contributions. The enormous gap opening up between the public sector worker and private sector worker pension provisions makes this unfair.Right, so back to my questions:
(1) Does this indicate that private sector employees contribute too little to their own pension schemes or that public sector schemes are too generous (or even a little bit of both)?
(2) Do these projections take into account the recent reforms to UK public sector pension schemes (careful in answering this, you may have to contradict yourself)?
I'll throw in a third
(3) What has this got to do with Ireland?
Private sector workers should decide for themselves how much or how little they want to save, although they should be warned they may have to work till 75 to maintain a good standard of living.
Given dramatically increasing life expectancies and small family sizes in most advanced economies,there are fewer and fewer workers per pensioner. The burden of taxes to pay pensions will lead to economic stagnation in Europe and the US. The latter faces huge tax increases in the next 12 years to pay for the pensions and medical care of a huge bulge in the population known as postwar baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1958.
Ireland is an exception to that outlook at present, thanks to large family sizes and immigration. But extremely high house prices,a weakening of Celtic Tiger optimism,a desire to limit immigration at some point and the possible introduction of abortion in a decade or so could bring sharply reduced population growth.
As for (2) above, actuaries are cautious fellows who rely on statistical calculation,so I presume they are aware of the reforms. As to the effect of the reforms,it will be hard to tell for years how effective they are given the Blair government's genius for spin.
As for point (3),given similar social trends in the UK and Ireland, it is interesting to look at the pensions situation there. The British media does more investigative journalism into government than the Irish media,which helps to inform the public.
You are unable to hold your drink! I'll tell the barman to chuck you out!Right - except in the UK it is a statutory requirement to inflation-proof pensions in payment (even preserved awards). So you're talking a bit of nonsense here.
After a few too many Singapore Slings my sarcasm-levels are probably set way too high - you have a point (public sector pensions are a very large liability and shouldn't be ignored by the government) but you seem, to me, to be blinded by predjudice against the public sector in general and handicapped by ignorance of the pensions system in the UK (which you are trying to use to make a point about Ireland). Try opening your mind a little.
A person doesn't have to know all the details of everything to draw obvious inferences and reach conclusions. Detail minded people often can't see the wood for the trees.
I said "probably" in the case of the UK and I admit lack of knowledge on that UK provision for inflation. But I know for certain that up until about a decade ago,and I suspect since then,most US companies made little or no adjustments for the effect of inflation on pensions. That contrasts dramatically with the gold plated adjustments to Irish public sector worker pensions in line with the wages of their former departments.
I am not prejudiced against the public sector. If those public sector areas that are underperforming (eg HSE and hospitals, public transport,education of disadvantaged etc) started to deliver government services efficiently,they would be worth their generous pay and pensions. While the government has done a reasonably good job of managing the economy,it is handicapped in running government services by its inability to extract productivity from a pampered work force protected by highly militant unions.
You are terribly defensive,so I'm thinking you belong to the pampered work force.
A public sector pension generally pays half of one's finishing salary. Increases are linked to the salary that they finished up on. Such increases in recent times have generally but not always matched inflation.
Is this a great pension? It is certainly better than many people have, and obviously those unprovided for work in the private sector. But would many of us like to live on half our current income?
I think the issue is the low level of pension provision of many people in the private sector. This should be a huge political issue, and whether we like it or not, it is a huge economic issue in all our lives. People need help and advice and support. And - crucially - their pension needs have to be a part of any pay bargaining they do with teir employer. I would support anybody campaigning to help.
But I don't see why those without a provision should attack those who have one.
The problem is that private sector taxes are used disproportionately to fund public sector worker pensions. The taxes are a transfer from private sector pension havenots and pension poor to the public sector pension haves.
The fight for better pensions. I'm sorry, but some of the bleating here is pathetic. You join a company or organisation knowing what your salary will be and what pension provisions you have to make. I knew it joining both the private sector and public sector organisations I have worked for. It's called 'making a choice'.
If the public sector is SOOOOOO well paid and SOOOOO fabulous in terms of pension plans, family friendly policies and work opportunities, then why don't you join it??? Seriously, if the difference is that much.
The reality is that those at middle management grades are on ok wages, but nothing great. The starting salary at EO is 30k for those with degrees and who came in the top 2-3% for competitions with roughly 6,000 candidates (all with 3rd level qualifications), regardless of age and experience.
Those at PO and upward grades earn good wages, but similar experienced staff in the private sector quite frequently earn more, as many public sector organisations find when trying to hire suitable candidates for management of agencies (trust me on this). Those at Assist sec and Sec Gen levels are on very good salaries compared to 95% of workers, but they pale when compared to directors, CEOs or similar sized companies - and thats just on salary basis and before the ability to avail of share offerings, bonuses etc on top of their salaries.
Reply With Quote