Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STMO123]

As far as I can see, most of this thread is uniformed rhetoric. No change there then

[I_want_an_Omega]

As far as I can see, most of this thread is uniformed rhetoric. No change there then

That gives hope to the some that isn't then.

[2boxerdogs]

 ;DSome of you may not like this but both my wife & I work in the public sector & yes we will have decent pensions when we retire, but hey anyone can apply for a job with them but a lot choose not too because when times were good they could earn more elsewhere & chose not to think about their retirement years. A lot of this is sour grapes people need to think ahead & if they do not tough s**t!!!

[albitz]

So you think its ok that I contribute more to your oension than I contribute to my own ?
Nothing to do with sour grapes.Everything to do with fairness and economic reality.

[2boxerdogs]

Yes why not? The clue is in the title we serve the public i have lost count of the times people have said "could not do your job for any  amount of money" why should i not have a comfortable retirement  i have earnt it fair & square and guess what, the changes coming in will not affect me one bit!!Roll on retirement.

[albitz]

Yes why not? The clue is in the title we serve the public i have lost count of the times people have said "could not do your job for any  amount of money" why should i not have a comfortable retirement  i have earnt it fair & square and guess what, the changes coming in will not affect me one bit!!Roll on retirement.

In your position, I wouldnt be able to sleep at night.
This govt. should have the balls to sort the problems before they become insurmountable, as people like yourself obviously dont care what effect your future lifestyle has on the rest of the country that you claim to serve.
1. New employment legislation restricting union activity, particularily in the public sector. Preferably making it unlawful for public servants to take industrial action, and revoking the recognition of unions in key services.
2. Tear up the present agreements on pay and conditions before they bankrupt the country.
3.Reduce the number of people employed in the public sector by a minimum of 750,000 - pre new Labour  levels in other words.
4. Explain to the public sector at large that it is funded via taxation on the private sector, therefore when the rpivate sector periodically hits hard times there will be less money available to fund the public sector.Therefore the public sector will always have to take the pain the same as the private sector does. The only alternative is to once again borrow billions of pounds to fund the shortfall, and look where that has got us.
5. Also explain that pensions in the 21st century are paid from the profits (or otherwise) from the investments of the recipients pension pot.There isnt a money tree in the garden of the treasury. Any other arrangement means taking the money from other people. People dont have any automatic right to a set amount of pension income upon retirement. Those days are long gone, and the sooner it is enforced upon the public sector the better for the country as a whole.
If the people concerned really are genuine public servants who care about serving their country, rather than serving themselves, they shouldnt have a problem with that.

[I_want_an_Omega]

I think we should stop here guys as there is no right answer to this debate - as I said before.

Are there overpaid/breakless people in the public sector - yes, of course - but in the private sector also. I'm sure we all know some of each. In the same way there are also underpaid people in both sectors.


 

[STMO123]

Let me put you straight on a couple of points here Albs (again). My missus pays 6.25% of her salary in pension contributions. The local authority (that's you, according to you ) pay another 13%. So that's 19.25% of her salary going into the pot. When/if her contribution rises to 9% of salary, the LA will still pay in 13%. So no saving to your good self.

Retirement age: My missus joined the pension scheme before 2007, so will still retire at 60.

2. Age retirement
The NPA for a teacher is dependant upon whether the teacher joined the scheme on or before 1 January 2007. Where a teacher was a teacher of the TPS before 1 January 2007 and has not transferred their service out, their NPA is 60. Where a teacher joins the scheme for the first time on or after 1 January 2007 their NPA is 65.

If a deferred teacher subsequently returns to service with a break of less than five years, and accrues 30 days reckonable service or 60 days’ pensionable employment, they will retain a NPA of 60 for their future service. If a teacher returns with more than a five year break in service, then future service will have a NPA of 65 but previous service will retain a NPA of 60. These are “mixed service” teachers.


So, apart from a rise in contributions, it doesn't make all that much difference, assuming it goes ahead.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Heres the reality check though, just because you have a contract dated x stating this is what you get, does not mean it cant be changed (been there, done that, bought the T-shirt)

And they will change them

We have a few options (plus others)

1) Change the pensions
2) Increase taxes for all
3) Reduce the spending on public sector to meet pension outputs.
4) Increase retirement age further

Either way, there WILL be a bitter pill to swallow (note, I am affected by this due to er-indoors)

[aaronjb]

I simply plan to die before retirement. No need to plan for old age, that way

[albitz]

I think we should stop here guys as there is no right answer to this debate - as I said before.

Are there overpaid/breakless people in the public sector - yes, of course - but in the private sector also. I'm sure we all know some of each. In the same way there are also underpaid people in both sectors.

Its got nothing to do with how hard working or otherwise people are Robert. Just about whats right and wrong in the current and long term economic climate of our country.Simple as that.

 

[STMO123]

Heres the reality check though, just because you have a contract dated x stating this is what you get, does not mean it cant be changed (been there, done that, bought the T-shirt)

And they will change them

We have a few options (plus others)

1) Change the pensions
2) Increase taxes for all
3) Reduce the spending on public sector to meet pension outputs.
4) Increase retirement age further

Either way, there WILL be a bitter pill to swallow (note, I am affected by this due to er-indoors)

I personally think that the lib dems will sh!t their pants long before such draconian measures are in place (they'd have to do something or they will be unelectable for the next 50 years).

Don't get me wrong.....I know we are in the doo-doo and that harsh measures are inevitable. It's the politics of envy I object to. Every security guard, shop assistant, taxi driver etc. thinks that public sector should be hammered, all because they haven't got a decent pension. Tough titty.

[albitz]

Let me put you straight on a couple of points here Albs (again). My missus pays 6.25% of her salary in pension contributions. The local authority (that's you, according to you ) pay another 13%. So that's 19.25% of her salary going into the pot. When/if her contribution rises to 9% of salary, the LA will still pay in 13%. So no saving to your good self.

Retirement age: My missus joined the pension scheme before 2007, so will still retire at 60.

2. Age retirement
The NPA for a teacher is dependant upon whether the teacher joined the scheme on or before 1 January 2007. Where a teacher was a teacher of the TPS before 1 January 2007 and has not transferred their service out, their NPA is 60. Where a teacher joins the scheme for the first time on or after 1 January 2007 their NPA is 65.

If a deferred teacher subsequently returns to service with a break of less than five years, and accrues 30 days reckonable service or 60 days’ pensionable employment, they will retain a NPA of 60 for their future service. If a teacher returns with more than a five year break in service, then future service will have a NPA of 65 but previous service will retain a NPA of 60. These are “mixed service” teachers.


So, apart from a rise in contributions, it doesn't make all that much difference, assuming it goes ahead.

Nothing personal Steve, but I believe the authority shouldnt be paying anywhere near 13%. All the stuff you wrote in blue - it should be torn up and replaced with something more realistic.
Retirement at 60 shouldnt be an option in the 21st century, unless the individual is fortunate enough to be able to fund their own retirement.

[STMO123]

Let me put you straight on a couple of points here Albs (again). My missus pays 6.25% of her salary in pension contributions. The local authority (that's you, according to you ) pay another 13%. So that's 19.25% of her salary going into the pot. When/if her contribution rises to 9% of salary, the LA will still pay in 13%. So no saving to your good self.

Retirement age: My missus joined the pension scheme before 2007, so will still retire at 60.

2. Age retirement
The NPA for a teacher is dependant upon whether the teacher joined the scheme on or before 1 January 2007. Where a teacher was a teacher of the TPS before 1 January 2007 and has not transferred their service out, their NPA is 60. Where a teacher joins the scheme for the first time on or after 1 January 2007 their NPA is 65.

If a deferred teacher subsequently returns to service with a break of less than five years, and accrues 30 days reckonable service or 60 days’ pensionable employment, they will retain a NPA of 60 for their future service. If a teacher returns with more than a five year break in service, then future service will have a NPA of 65 but previous service will retain a NPA of 60. These are “mixed service” teachers.


So, apart from a rise in contributions, it doesn't make all that much difference, assuming it goes ahead.

Nothing personal Steve, but I believe the authority shouldnt be paying anywhere near 13%. All the stuff you wrote in blue - it should be torn up and replaced with something more realistic.
Retirement at 60 shouldnt be an option in the 21st century, unless the individual is fortunate enough to be able to fund their own retirement.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter one jot what you think.

[I_want_an_Omega]

I think we should stop here guys as there is no right answer to this debate - as I said before.

Are there overpaid/breakless people in the public sector - yes, of course - but in the private sector also. I'm sure we all know some of each. In the same way there are also underpaid people in both sectors.

Its got nothing to do with how hard working or otherwise people are Robert. Just about whats right and wrong in the current and long term economic climate of our country.Simple as that.

 

Agreed - I was just making the point that there are good & bad on both sides of the fence - they aren't the cause of the problem so we can't make sweeping generalisations about whole sections of our society. That would be like saying that all Omega owners are sensible or honest which is obviously not true either.