Civil Service Pensions

[Freggyragh]

Trying to court sympathy from the people paying your pension are you?

 

If taking the piss out of you is 'courting sympathy' then guilty as charged.

 

No chance of redundancy, guaranteed inflationary pay increases, job related death benefits, sickness and long term illness pay at no cost to you, no risk of unemployment, then a final salary pension index linked for life for you and for your partner when you die.

That sounds like a reasonable deal, why don't you apply?

 

If your a government worker

 

you're

 

Maybe you have but your grammar let you down.

 

Maybe you have, but your punctuation let you down.

[manxman2]

Fuck me >.<

[When Skies Are Grey]

Maybe you have, but your punctuation let you down.

 

Is a comma required with a conjunction?

[manxman8180]

conjunction?

 

Is that like a complicated road lay out?

[Freggyragh]

Back to the topic - isn't the answer simply to tax pensions (the ones that have not been contributed to). There could be a £20,000 allowance, a 25% tax on the £20,000 to £30,000 band, 50% on the £30,000 to £40,000 band, 75% on the £40,000 to £50,000 band, and 99% from there on. You could also make allowances for care home fees and medical expenses.

[manxman2]

Maybe you have, but your punctuation let you down.

 

Is a comma required with a conjunction?

 

wasnt the new quarter bridge going to be a con junction.

[BETTYBOO68]

yours and stus replys were good uns betty.. shines a different light on things.

 

 

people forget government workers are paying twice into the pot for pensions, through monthly contributions and through tax! for their future pension and for people drawing their pension right now. i think paying twice qualifies for a bit of whinging about the current proposals.

[manxman2]

Back to the topic - isn't the answer simply to tax pensions (the ones that have not been contributed to). There could be a £20,000 allowance, a 25% tax on the £20,000 to £30,000 band, 50% on the £30,000 to £40,000 band, 75% on the £40,000 to £50,000 band, and 99% from there on. You could also make allowances for care home fees and medical expenses.

 

care home medical fees .. we are talking ex bankers here .. may i suggest firing squad .. and bill his next of kin for it..

 

 

edit ... oops in my eagerness too make a funny.. .. however if the thread wudda been about bankers..??

[Freggyragh]

The thread is about civil service pensions.

[manshimajin]

yours and stus replys were good uns betty.. shines a different light on things.

people forget government workers are paying twice into the pot for pensions, through monthly contributions and through tax! for their future pension and for people drawing their pension right now. i think paying twice qualifies for a bit of whinging about the current proposals.

People forget private sector workers are paying twice too - once for their own pension and once to join with everyone inunderwriting the public sector pension deficit for PS employees....I think that that qualifies for even more whingeing about the whole set up as there isn't even a benefit for the second element. Betty at least you are underwriting your own pension schemes through your tax.

[P.K.]

PK, I'd gladly keep my head down on this topic as thinking about pensions makes it hurt, but you're wrong.

 

My pension scheme is one of the many that's covered by this review. Remember, MR is owned by the taxpayer (in simple terms) with the stock held by Treasury, and the annual operating budget comprising something like 40% subvention/60% commercial income.

 

I think I pay 5% of my monthly pay cheque into the pension pot (bit more than nothing). My company has targets for targets, no job is any safer than in the private sector, and I've just had my first three days sickie (norovirus - no option) for a considerable time. You assert that public sector workers are already ahead of their private sector counterparts by virtue of their pension - only true if the salary is the same in both cases.

 

But let's draw a line under this - fact is, the antipathy being shown to PSW's is uncalled for. When you apply for a job, you go for the best package you can, and if part of that is a good pension, then so be it. Bit like anyone who bought an endowment mortgage years ago - on the basis that at maturity they could pay off their mortgage principle AND have a big cash payout (of course, the actuaries had got it wrong again, and the whole system fell into disrepute, with people ending up with a shortfall). Well, the pension thing is a similar con - we've all bought into a scheme with promises made by the scheme administrators (our employers), we've kept our part of the bargain (despite often needing the money more early in life) and then been told that the goalposts have shifted and we're likely to be short-changed.

Come on Stu, we know each other so we're aware we're both reasonable men.

 

I would say if you're paying in 5% pa for a 2% pa pension return then I would say that was reasonable compared to us private sector wage slaves. Sure when you go for a job you go for the best deal you can and that includes the bennies. I well remember on a new post being offered being asked "So how much would you cost us?". I gave a figure to be told "That shouldn't be a problem." BOLLOCKS!!!!! Went in too low and you only get one chance at that one.

 

But the thing is, as you touched on, the public sector have a level of expectation as concerns bennies like pension. In the private sector we're aware that "market forces" can drag the figures around, right now very much downwards. In the public sector they have a certain expectation that they believe is cast in stone and that no amount of doom-mongering "recession" talk is going to alter their very comfortable last payoff thank you very much indeedy. But that last payoff is being funded by us good, honest, hard-working tax-payers who have seen our pensions reduce almost by the hour.

 

So in keeping with most (if not all) private sector employees when I hear a Scribbling Servant moaning that the pension pot they have NEVER contributed too may not actually meet their 60-year-old expectations then all I can think off is "Welcome to the real world, it changes over time, unlike you, get used to it."

[tiger lily]

why we not payin % of us pay?? separatly every year

so year end bill arrivin every year - jus for them civil service pension

 

every workin person payin big enuff bill to balanc pension gap every year

this way we seein clear how much it cost out of workin person pockets every year !!

 

if bill get to big - us islanders revolt

sayin to MHK

plees stick yuor pension bill wer no son ever shinin

[manxman2]

glad im self employed and dont have to worry about my pension .. stressing me out just readin about it..

[manshimajin]

So in keeping with most (if not all) private sector employees when I hear a Scribbling Servant moaning that the pension pot they have NEVER contributed too may not actually meet their 60-year-old expectations then all I can think off is "Welcome to the real world, it changes over time, unlike you, get used to it."

PK I'd also like a bit lot of economic reality in relation to PS pensions - but when you say that they have never contributed to the pot is that right? Some public servants do seem to have contibuted as have some semi-state employees. Who are the people who do not contribute.

 

What I don't like is the fact that taxpayers (and that does include public servants I acknowledge) are also having to contribute ever increasing amounts to underwrite the deficit. If the costs continue to escalate way ahead of inflation it means that either the taxes here will have to rise a lot, or if they don't, our taxes will pay for the pension scheme and there will be little or no money left to pay for public services...and that means to our PS contributors...loss of most PS jobs...

 

And as things stand if the schemes don't change the costs of the schemes will grow faster than inflation. This is because of the age profile of the workforce (more people coming up to retirement) and the fact that thanks to medical science we are on average living a lot longer so the fund has to pay out for a lot longer period than was originally factored in.

 

I think this is called 'welcome to the real world'. More tax, bigger taxpayer pension subsidies, big reduction in public services, big loss of PS jobs, revised affordable scheme? Choose your poison!

[P.K.]

The whole "Public Servants" debate really does annoy me. They should start shedding staff until there are just enough to do the job. Because that's actually exactly the right amount to have. In my experience the public service are vastly over-subscribed but no-one ever looks at reducing their numbers because there is no benefit in the "managers" reducing staff - because their "raison d'etre" would reduce accordingly!

 

Organisations that "evolve" are appallingly inefficient - but you'll never find a civil servant prepared to do anything about it because they have no P & L targets. They're not something a Scribbling Servant ever has to worry about. QED.