[andykn]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

I can only laugh that private sector pensions are being touted as the real problem while ignoring the issues with public sector ones which the thread is about.

It has often been said that local government pension schemes are funded by contributions from employees which are invested and paid from such investements as opposed to those of central government pensions which are funded on a pay as you go basis by taxpayers. It appears local government shemes have fared no better than their private sector counterparts except they seem to have a guarantor in the taxpayer.

It's not that they "seem" to have a guarantor in the taxpayer, that's the contract offered to them when they started.

To offset the lower pay and lack of rapid promotion prospects.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by soulboy77

I was reading that many councils don't actually have a 'pension fund' as such for former employees. Pensions are being funded directly from income received from rates and the government.

You were reading wrong.

All Local Authorities have a pension fund.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

I can only laugh that private sector pensions are being touted as the real problem while ignoring the issues with public sector ones which the thread is about.

It has often been said that local government pension schemes are funded by contributions from employees which are invested and paid from such investements as opposed to those of central government pensions which are funded on a pay as you go basis by taxpayers. It appears local government shemes have fared no better than their private sector counterparts except they seem to have a guarantor in the taxpayer.

Glad you think that the woeful level of pensions in much of the private sector is a laughing matter.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by andykn

It's not that they "seem" to have a guarantor in the taxpayer, that's the contract offered to them when they started.

To offset the lower pay and lack of rapid promotion prospects.

Well the low pay and rapid promotion prospects are a rather mute points these days and there is plenty of evidence to show the disparity in pay levels is not there.

As for contracts, does it say in these public sector contracts your pension is guaranteed irrespective of the performance of the pension scheme you belong to and pay into and taxpayers will make up any shortfall. Private sector employees had or have pensions arrangements in their contracts but it doesn't say they are guaranteed to remain ever thus or that taxpayers will make up any shortfall.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Well that's a bit of a rant and quite an uninformed one at that. I am well aware of the issues with private sector final salary pension schemes and it appears local government schemes are in a very similar position except they haven't been closed and have it seems the ultimate backstop, the taxpayer.

Taxpayers in the private sector have been paying taxes to cover public sector pensions for years and your rather bizarre view that it is all due to the private sector that public sector pensions are under such scrutiny regarding their affordability is to say the least bizarre.

Nobody seems to have a solution to the basic problem with pensions which is the lack of money to pay them, be it in the private or public sectors.

I believe the value of tax concessions made to private sector pensions exceeds the value paid into public sector pensions.

Right?

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

I believe the value of tax concessions made to private sector pensions exceeds the value paid into public sector pensions.

Right?

Well as you believe it perhaps you could provide the figures to show it. Not that I can see how it is relevant as pension contributions are deducted from your salary before it is subject to income tax regardless of which sector you work in.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Well as you believe it perhaps you could provide the figures to show it. Not that I can see how it is relevant as pension contributions are deducted from your salary before it is subject to income tax regardless of which sector you work in.

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline...payer-gbp376bn

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Well the low pay and rapid promotion prospects are a rather mute points these days and there is plenty of evidence to show the disparity in pay levels is not there.

It's not the public sector's fault the private sector is doing badly.

As for contracts, does it say in these public sector contracts your pension is guaranteed irrespective of the performance of the pension scheme you belong to and pay into and taxpayers will make up any shortfall.

Yes.

Private sector employees had or have pensions arrangements in their contracts but it doesn't say they are guaranteed to remain ever thus or that taxpayers will make up any shortfall.

Correct.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline...payer-gbp376bn

And?

The tax relief the author calls 'a government subsidy' is given to anyone making pension contribution in whatever sector they work. The relief is on pension contributions not payments and there are more people contributing than being paid a pension which btw is taxed.

Claiming tax relief on contributions is a £37b government subsidy for pension payments of £35b is total rubbish and surprisingly though not in reality he fails to provide the same breakdown of the tax relief or subsidy on the £25b of public sector pension payments. A more biased spin article would be difficult to imagine.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline...payer-gbp376bn

Did you actually read the text of the article?

Ros Altmann director-general of Saga, says the report has "some basic fallacies."

"The report confuses time horizons by suggesting that tax relief today pays for all pensions today.

"It fails to mention today's pension savers are much greater in number than today's pensioners but as the baby boom generation comes up for retirement, the numbers of pensioners is set to soar and, therefore, tax relief now is supposed to help offset the cost of rising numbers of pensioners in future," she adds.

I notice that the author lists the funding sources for his organisation (on his web-site) and they include:

The TUC
The PCSU

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by andykn

It's not the public sector's fault the private sector is doing badly.

We are talking about local government pension funds which many claimed are supposed to be self financing.

Yes.

Correct.

If so that means local government pension schemes are guaranteed by the taxpayer while private schemes aren't or to put it another way the formers' schemes are affordable as those in the latter are paying for them.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

We are talking about local government pension funds which many claimed are supposed to be self financing.

They're invested in the private sector. If that does badly, public sector pensions will be underfunded.

If so that means local government pension schemes are guaranteed by the taxpayer while private schemes aren't or to put it another way the formers' schemes are affordable as those in the latter are paying for them.

That's the contract made by the employer (ultimately the taxpayer) with the public sector employee.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by andykn

They're invested in the private sector. If that does badly, public sector pensions will be underfunded.

That's the contract made by the employer (ultimately the taxpayer) with the public sector employee.

Local council ones are supposedly funded by a scheme, none of the other public sector pensions are but it seems it hardly matters as the private sector taxpayer funds them regardless.

I'd be interested to see an example of this contract that guarantees the taxpayer will make up any shortfall, as a taxpayer I was never asked to and have not signed a contract to.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Local council ones are supposedly funded by a scheme, none of the other public sector pensions are but it seems it hardly matters as the private sector taxpayer funds them regardless.

I'd be interested to see an example of this contract that guarantees the taxpayer will make up any shortfall, as a taxpayer I was never asked to and have not signed a contract to.

No but you elected councillors who recruited staff based partly on the terms of the promised pension.

I've never signed a contract to say I'll pay back Govt bonds but, as a taxpayer I am obliged to.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by andykn

No but you elected councillors who recruited staff based partly on the terms of the promised pension.

I've never signed a contract to say I'll pay back Govt bonds but, as a taxpayer I am obliged to.

So, they never consulted me on who they recruited or what their remuneration and pension arrangements were. If they had I'd have stopped paying my council tax years ago and spent some time at HM pleasure.

Btw any chance of a copy of this contract?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

So, they never consulted me on who they recruited or what their remuneration and pension arrangements were. If they had I'd have stopped paying my council tax years ago and spent some time at HM pleasure.

Btw any chance of a copy of this contract?

Funnily enough, I was never consulted on the last UK Gilts issue, either. But I'm prepared to pay tax and meet my collective responsibilities.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by andykn

Funnily enough, I was never consulted on the last UK Gilts issue, either. But I'm prepared to pay tax and meet my collective responsibilities.

Good for you. Any sign of a copy of that contract? It is just I'm beginning to wonder if it actually says what you claim it does.

[MartinP]

Originally Posted by andykn

It's not the public sector's fault the private sector is doing badly.

Yet private sector workers have to pay more money to support public sector workers because of increased life expectancy. No wonder they cannot afford to save for their own retirement. Where is this extra money supposed to come from?

[Sallyforth]

The question has been done to death. So what's the answer then?

It should be borne in mind that any additional employee contributions will still be "taxpayers' money" (i.e. they will come from that same salary) and will go into the same pension pot instead of going to other places including the State pension pot and of course into the private sector on other spending.

[ThePhotographer]

Originally Posted by MartinP

Yet private sector workers have to pay more money to support public sector workers because of increased life expectancy. No wonder they cannot afford to save for their own retirement. Where is this extra money supposed to come from?

I feel it may have an explanation that resembles Harriet's 'explanation': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN-g0Y6t6zs

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by Sallyforth

The question has been done to death. So what's the answer then?

It appears to be work longer and pay more towards your own pension, not one that is very popular hence the public sector outrage.

[monkeydave68]

Originally Posted by Sallyforth

The question has been done to death. So what's the answer then?

Originally Posted by Sallyforth

It should be borne in mind that any additional employee contributions will still be "taxpayers' money" (i.e. they will come from that same salary) and will go into the same pension pot instead of going to other places including the State pension pot and of course into the private sector on other spending.

no more guaranteed pensions just a state pension and if you want any more sort it out for yourself like the private sector

and how about you can retire at 50 but don't get a penny until 65 like everyone else so get another job till then or continue till 65. how come public sector only have to work 30 years and not 50 like the private ??? you cant be retired for more years than you work for, get used to it.

also the public sector pay 5% of their salary into their pension and the tax payer pays in 14%, how come it is so high, at most it should be 5%

[Sallyforth]

So to be clear you want all the money that's in them now repaid to the state pension pot so we all get a bit more?

As like I said, employer or employee, it's all come from tax.. And it still will be if they only pay into the State one.

I don't know what the answer is!

[MartinP]

Originally Posted by Puterkid

I have been buying extra years of pension for 15 years. I will have paid over £100,000 into my pension by the time I retire, currently won't be at least until I'm 68. My estimated annual pension is around £15,000. I will have to live a long time to get my investment back. Meanwhile, the council I work for has had my money to invest and has done really well and has a surplus.

Is the scheme listed in the link?

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/hom...-revealed.html

It's still a good deal you've got. For £100k you would barely get more than £5,000 a year by purchaing an annuity.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by monkeydave68

[b]


no more guaranteed pensions just a state pension and if you want any more sort it out for yourself like the private sector

and how about you can retire at 50 but don't get a penny until 65 like everyone else so get another job till then or continue till 65. how come public sector only have to work 30 years and not 50 like the private ??? you cant be retired for more years than you work for, get used to it.

also the public sector pay 5% of their salary into their pension and the tax payer pays in 14%, how come it is so high, at most it should be 5%

Care to explain this, please?