Town hall pensions

[papa smurf]

The cost to each council taxpayer of subsidising town hall workers’ pensions shot up to more than £300 last year.
Almost a quarter of every penny paid in council tax - £5.8billion - went to underwrite gold-plated schemes.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz12JQEcY1N

should we be paying for this ?

Can we try and not repeat the Mail's emotive language, please?

Whilst I am in agreement that pensions need reforming, as Lord Hutton himself stated

Lord Hutton rejected the frequently made claim that public sector pensions are gold-plated.

He pointed out that the average pension in payment was currently £7,800 a year, which he described as modest, not excessive.

And he rejected the idea put forward by employers' organisations that because private sector pension provision was poor by comparison, public sector pensions should be dragged down to the same level.

"I have rejected a race for the bottom," he said.

In fact, a table on the webpage linked to above shows some interesting figures for local government employees -

Worker - Local Government
% salary paid* - 5.55 - 7.5%
Employer contribution* - 13.20%
Pension age* - 65
Average pension - £4,044

So, £4k per annum works out at approx £335 per month - must be a new definition of "gold-plated" I hadn't come across before.......


* Depending on scheme Source: Independent Public Service Pensions Commission report, government departments

[MartJ]

Well said Hugh.

I am getting sick and tired of the constant attacks on pensions of public sector workers, as Lord Hutton has siad they are not gold plated, but of course the Daily Mail and the rest of the trashy tabloids choose to ignore this.

And remember every time you go shopping at Tesco's, Sainsbury's M&S or purchase a service from a private sector company an element of what you pay goes towards that companies pension scheme, as most empoyers contribute to their staffs scheme, don't see many people objecting to this, so why pick on public sector workers.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by MartJ

... so why pick on public sector workers.

Because they are (largely) unaccountable to the people who pay their wages, i.e. the taxpayer.

If I don't like the way Tesco run their business, I don't let them have my money. I have no such choice with the local government bureaucrats.

[fireman328]

I will tell my watch tonigh what you said.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Can we try and not repeat the Mail's emotive language, please?

Whilst I am in agreement that pensions need reforming, as Lord Hutton himself stated

In fact, a table on the webpage linked to above shows some interesting figures for local government employees -

Worker - Local Government
% salary paid* - 5.55 - 7.5%
Employer contribution* - 13.20%
Pension age* - 65
Average pension - £4,044

So, £4k per annum works out at approx £335 per month - must be a new definition of "gold-plated" I hadn't come across before.......


* Depending on scheme Source: Independent Public Service Pensions Commission report, government departments

I don't understand your calculation, what salary is that based on?????????????? You don't quote the salary the figures are based on, which is important if you want to make a proper comparison.

As I see it 13.5% employer contribution against an average employee contribution of 6.5% as pretty generous.

Thats a total pension contrubution of 20% of your salary each month.

VM, for typical example of a decent employer in the private sector with decent benefits only matches your contribution. Therefore, If I want to get 20% into my pension I would have to contribute 10% of my salary.

Based on your figures above.

A local authority worker on £25,000 a year is getting the same amount of money being put into his pension plan as a VM worker on £38,400 a year. Based on a contribution of 6.5%

That is where the disparity between public sector pensions and private sector pensions is.

And let's not forget, there's plenty of six figure+ salaries in the public sector so imagine how big the disparity is there.

The biggest annoyance is that whilst I'm paying through the nose for my pension I'm also contributing extra to public sector pensions.

You'd have to be blind not to see why private sector workers are thinking these cuts are a long time coming. It's about the time the public sector shared our pain.

[Osem]

According to my Oxford English dictionary, the definiton of the term 'gold-plated' with respect to matters financial is:

"likely to prove profitable; secure."

I think that's what most people are referring to when using the term in connection with public sector pensions.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by fireman328

I will tell my watch tonigh what you said.

Funnily enough, I think firemen (or is that now "firepersons"?), nurses and teachers should get paid a great deal more than they do now. Some of the extra money required should come from savings made by increasing the efficiency of local government.

[Jon T]

I don't get where people get their figures from, my employer matches my contributions + a small bit extra to the LGPS, they certainly don't contribute 13%.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the retirement age, i'm 31, by the time I get to 40 i'll be lucky to still if there's still my type of post anywhere in the country within LA's.

Just wait, profit driven private sector labour won't be a rosey as people think. The work will still have to be done, and the private companies providing it won't be doing it for nothing(as LA's do now). Who pays for the profit? Oh, that's right, the taxpayer! The private sector will spend less on providing the services in order to provide a profit for themselves.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Jon T

... The private sector will spend less on providing the services in order to provide a profit for themselves.

Well, that is the whole idea.

If I ask you to empty my rubbish bins every week for £500 p.a., and you do it for £400 and keep £100 as profit, good luck to you!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jon T

The work will still have to be done, and the private companies providing it won't be doing it for nothing(as LA's do now). Who pays for the profit? Oh, that's right, the taxpayer! The private sector will spend less on providing the services in order to provide a profit for themselves.

I'm moving to Mansfield. Apparently nobody there pays council tax.

The Local Authority does all the work for nothing.

I'm not sure of the business model, but hey...........

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm moving to Mansfield. Apparently nobody there pays council tax.

The Local Authority does all the work for nothing.

I'm not sure of the business model, but hey...........

They don't make a profit is what i'm saying, and you know that. The money that they get from central government, council tax etc is used directly on the services, for the labour and the materials to provide them, not to line the pockets of shareholders.

BTW, just looked at my latest payslip, my contributions to the LGPS are 9% of my earnings, not 6.5%, i'll find out the employer contribution rate tomorrow.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't understand your calculation, what salary is that based on?????????????? You don't quote the salary the figures are based on, which is important if you want to make a proper comparison.

As I see it 13.5% employer contribution against an average employee contribution of 6.5% as pretty generous.

Thats a total pension contrubution of 20% of your salary each month.

VM, for typical example of a decent employer in the private sector with decent benefits only matches your contribution. Therefore, If I want to get 20% into my pension I would have to contribute 10% of my salary.

Based on your figures above.

A local authority worker on £25,000 a year is getting the same amount of money being put into his pension plan as a VM worker on £38,400 a year. Based on a contribution of 6.5%

That is where the disparity between public sector pensions and private sector pensions is.

And let's not forget, there's plenty of six figure+ salaries in the public sector so imagine how big the disparity is there.

The biggest annoyance is that whilst I'm paying through the nose for my pension I'm also contributing extra to public sector pensions.

You'd have to be blind not to see why private sector workers are thinking these cuts are a long time coming. It's about the time the public sector shared our pain.

i also find the calculations confusing -perhaps there worked out on a local government owned calculator and the operator is wearing rose tinted specs

[Jon T]

Can't be bothered with the quote feature at the moment, but, how is a phrase like "I'm contributing to public workers pensions" justified. Every product you buy from the private sector is not only contributing that's companies pension fund, but also to shareholders in the form of dividends.

I say again, I contribute 9% of my pay packet each month to my LGPS pension, in line with most employers, a contribution is made my them as well.

If anyone's interested, I earn slightly more that 20k a year, compared to 23-26k I could get in the private sector, As a compulsory step that each LA has got to go through, i'm about to go through something called Single Status, this is a job evaluation process with in every authority it's been implemented in has wiped thousands of some people;'s wages. In relation to pensions, remeber that we're talking final salary here, so an employee is on 20k a year, based on my contributions, that's £1800 a year into the pension, single status then drops my wages to 16k as year, that's £1440 in contributions a year. I stay on that wage with LA employment till retirement, as my pesion isfinal salary, where does the extra money go to that I paid when I was on a higher wage?

........but hang on, i've got my rose tinted glasses on and my taxpayer purchased calculator.

THings are not a one way steet, and I would like to know what people think the soloution is. We've condemned the banks for what they've done. What I can't understand I that I a public worker am doing a job, i'm accepting the advantages/disadvantages that come with that job. Do I have any control over it? No!

Maybe we should have experience days/job swaps between the public sector and private. Or then again maybe not. As people on both sides have made up their made that the opposite side have clearly got it made.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jon T

Can't be bothered with the quote feature at the moment, but, how is a phrase like "I'm contributing to public workers pensions" justified. Every product you buy from the private sector is not only contributing that's companies pension fund, but also to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Yes, but I have choice about where and with whom I spend my money. Companies that provide good service, good value for money, and also keep their costs down will succeed in competitive market.

I have no choice but to pay my council tax whether I think I getting good value or good service.

I would also argue that, according to the fugures supplied earlier in the thread, the typical LA pension plan is better than a typical private/company pension plan. Where the local authority pay a good percentage more into the plan than the employee from public funds.

This is not money made because of good working practices, this is just money taken by the LA because they can.

I say again, I contribute 9% of my pay packet each month to my LGPS pension, in line with most employers, a contribution is made my them as well.

How much?

If anyone's interested, I earn slightly more that 20k a year, compared to 23-26k I could get in the private sector,

I'm not that intrested, and if it bothers you why not go into the private sector and get the other 3-6K

As a compulsory step that each LA has got to go through, i'm about to go through something called Single Status, this is a job evaluation process with in every authority it's been implemented in has wiped thousands of some people;'s wages.

So what? you think that doesn't happen every year in the private sector. FYI Virgin Media are in the middle of massive job realignment, salary levelling, and change in T&Cs program.

Whats your point?

In relation to pensions, remeber that we're talking final salary here,

I would love to be on a final salary pension. The final penaion you will receive is as good as guaranteed

so an employee is on 20k a year, based on my contributions, that's £1800 a year into the pension, single status then drops my wages to 16k as year, that's £1440 in contributions a year. I stay on that wage with LA employment till retirement, as my pesion isfinal salary, where does the extra money go to that I paid when I was on a higher wage?

Your assuming you'll stay on that wage until you retire? so much for ambition, maybe that's why you don't want to go out and get that other 3-6K

THings are not a one way steet, and I would like to know what people think the soloution is. We've condemned the banks for what they've done. What I can't understand I that I a public worker am doing a job, i'm accepting the advantages/disadvantages that come with that job. Do I have any control over it? No!

You have total control, you can leave.

Maybe we should have experience days/job swaps between the public sector and private. Or then again maybe not. As people on both sides have made up their made that the opposite side have clearly got it made.

I don't think you've got it made, far from it.

I wouldn't work in the public sector....unless I had to.

But neither do I think there should be separate set of rules. The public sector should be under even more scrutiny about how they spend their money. If they were more results driven and focused on getting more for their money the better run they'd be.