Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

by **Ivan** Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:16 am

First topic message reminder :

When the state retirement pension was introduced in the UK almost exactly a hundred years ago, it was paid to people over 70 years of age. Life expectancy was 71.5 years. More recently, the pension has been paid at 60 for women and 65 for men, and average life expectancy is about 80. The cost has been compounded by those working in the public sector receiving occupational pensions as well, but what's often overlooked is that the employees have contributed to them.

With what amounts to something close to a general strike due to happen on Wednesday (30 November), I see that the National Union of Teachers has issued this press release:-

Our research shows that, during the lifetime of the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS), £46.4 billion more has been paid into the scheme than has been paid out.

The NUT has calculated the total payments into and from the TPS over the period 1923 to date, using its official valuation reports and accounts. Adjusting these figures in line with GDP growth shows that at least £46.4 billion more in current prices has been paid into the TPS in contributions over the years than has been paid out in pensions.

This follows earlier reports by the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee which show that the long-term costs of the TPS are already declining following earlier reforms. The long-term picture contrasts sharply with the government's arguments that the current imbalance between contributions and payments makes teachers' pensions unsustainable.

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union, said: "The NUT's research proves two points. First, funding public sector pensions is a complex area; we won't allow our opponents simply to ignore those parts of the story that don't suit them. Second, it is a long term issue; policies shouldn't be driven by short-term considerations. There is no £46.4 billion to hand. The fact is, however, that the government has accepted a long series of cheap loans from teachers' pension contributions before complaining about paying the pensions promised in return."

The Tories have taken £3.7 billion from public sector provision as part of their austerity cuts. They prefer that to ideas such as taxing financial transactions between banks, or raising Inheritance Tax for millionaires, and in fact Osborne is very keen to remove the 50% tax band for the highest earners.

This government has tried to discredit the forthcoming action by saying that the unions don't have a mandate for it. Well they do. If people are sent a ballot paper and can't be bothered to send it back, that's their choice and at least they've had the opportunity to vote. Anyone who is against industrial action would surely have returned their ballot papers. Anyway, using that argument, the Tories have no mandate to be in power. They received the votes of 36.1% of the 65% who bothered to vote in the last general election, which means that just under 23.5% of the electorate voted for them - and those who voted for their Lib Dem stooges certainly weren't voting for pernicious right-wing Tory policies.

The average public sector pension is £5,600 per annum. If private sector pension provision is generally poor because of lousy employers, it doesn't mean that the pensions of public sector workers should be lowered, it's another issue. That's just part of the typical Tory "divide and rule" ethos, where you set one part of the community against another instead of against them.

I think Wednesday's action is wholly justified. There are people going on strike - such as head teachers - who have never done so before. If a country can't make decent provision for its oldest citizens after a lifetime of work, it's not a country of which I can be proud.

by sickchip Thu May 31, 2012 1:40 am

Top Tip: Worried about how you will afford to grow old in the UK? Why not play the National Lottery (twice per week) - you never know your luck?

If you really fancy your chances there is also a Euro Lottery twice per week, and a wide selection of scratch cards to choose from.

Good luck!

by skwalker1964 Thu May 31, 2012 9:27 am

Red - great post. I pay what I can afford into a pension plan only because my employers match contributions. But even so, it's absolutely borderline whether it's worth the trouble - private pensions are barely worth the paper the policy is written on. I fully expect to work well beyond whatever the retirement age turns out to be when I reach it - unless we kick out the moneygrabbers and restore a decent system.

But that's the solution we need - impoverishing public sector workers won't help the situation of people with crap private pensions. Because I don't have access to a decent pension option at the moment doesn't mean I want to take it away from people who do!

by Red Cat Woman Thu May 31, 2012 5:26 pm

skwalker1964 wrote:Red - great post. I pay what I can afford into a pension plan only because my employers match contributions. But even so, it's absolutely borderline whether it's worth the trouble - private pensions are barely worth the paper the policy is written on. I fully expect to work well beyond whatever the retirement age turns out to be when I reach it - unless we kick out the moneygrabbers and restore a decent system.

But that's the solution we need - impoverishing public sector workers won't help the situation of people with crap private pensions. Because I don't have access to a decent pension option at the moment doesn't mean I want to take it away from people who do!

Hello Skwalker.
Thanks had help from my dad ha ha. However, your first post was spot on and your so very right about moneygrabbers and restoring a fair and decent system. your also dead right, impoverishing public sector workers and dragging them into the pension mess. However, what makes me so very mad is that it was Maggot who once more has left us with a 30 year bomb. as the bottom line is the Tory party is totally responsible for the state of UK pensions. Yes they have the cheek to attack public sector pensions while not sorting out the utter mess with private sector pensions that are worthless in all but name. As this is one issue where no Tory can shout out that Private sector is better than the public sector can they? in fact has anyone from the right posted on this topic? NO they have not.

Why because there attack on public sector pensions has nothing to do with our currant Tory economic world banking crisis mess that Maggot put in place 30 years ago nor is this anything to do with the state of the UK economy now?.... No.... all of this is just right wing ideology and dogma, as its as about as senseless as there out dated economic policy based on Maggots 1980s economic policy that failed the last time around. the fact is most people today will never see there pensions or will have to work till they drop. will this all help young unemployed people NO. As we will be working longer while keep them out of work. if you ask me the whole bloody thing is on big mess of the Tory parties making.

Are public sector pensions really unaffordable? - Page 2 910

Are public sector pensions really unaffordable? - Page 2 910

by oftenwrong Thu May 31, 2012 7:44 pm

"all of this is just right wing ideology and dogma, as its as about as senseless as there out dated economic policy based on Maggots 1980s economic policy that failed the last time around."

Ain't it de troof? In 1980 the Tory administration was desperately short of liquidity, having hissed the income from North Sea Oil up the wall on buying peace with unemployment-benefits. Margaret Thatcher ended the link between the state pension and earnings; it was now to increase in line with prices. In effect, it was being left to wither on the vine...

The more that things change, the more they are the same.

by Stox 16 Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:42 am

oftenwrong wrote:"all of this is just right wing ideology and dogma, as its as about as senseless as there out dated economic policy based on Maggots 1980s economic policy that failed the last time around."

Ain't it de troof? In 1980 the Tory administration was desperately short of liquidity, having hissed the income from North Sea Oil up the wall on buying peace with unemployment-benefits. Margaret Thatcher ended the link between the state pension and earnings; it was now to increase in line with prices. In effect, it was being left to wither on the vine...

The more that things change, the more they are the same.

Hello OW
You could not sum this all better than your opening line. its utterly senseless and based on out dated economic policy of Maggots 1980s. its failed then and its failed now. they have left us with a city of London big bang that finally went bang in 2008. they left private pensions in a utter mess and today we have an economy that could not buy growth it it tried. (£350 billions has left us with 0.2% growth) we have unemployment at 2.6 million and UK incomes or disposable income down by 7% in just one year and a TAX office that has failed to collect £1 billion pounds in 2011 due to staff cuts. while we lose £69.7 billion a year in company tax. could this get any worse? well the sad news yes it can? who voted for this idiots is my question. what the hell was on there minds?

by Stox 16 Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:46 am

Red Cat Woman wrote:
skwalker1964 wrote:Red - great post. I pay what I can afford into a pension plan only because my employers match contributions. But even so, it's absolutely borderline whether it's worth the trouble - private pensions are barely worth the paper the policy is written on. I fully expect to work well beyond whatever the retirement age turns out to be when I reach it - unless we kick out the moneygrabbers and restore a decent system.

But that's the solution we need - impoverishing public sector workers won't help the situation of people with crap private pensions. Because I don't have access to a decent pension option at the moment doesn't mean I want to take it away from people who do!

Hello Skwalker.
Thanks had help from my dad ha ha. However, your first post was spot on and your so very right about moneygrabbers and restoring a fair and decent system. your also dead right, impoverishing public sector workers and dragging them into the pension mess. However, what makes me so very mad is that it was Maggot who once more has left us with a 30 year bomb. as the bottom line is the Tory party is totally responsible for the state of UK pensions. Yes they have the cheek to attack public sector pensions while not sorting out the utter mess with private sector pensions that are worthless in all but name. As this is one issue where no Tory can shout out that Private sector is better than the public sector can they? in fact has anyone from the right posted on this topic? NO they have not.

Why because there attack on public sector pensions has nothing to do with our currant Tory economic world banking crisis mess that Maggot put in place 30 years ago nor is this anything to do with the state of the UK economy now?.... No.... all of this is just right wing ideology and dogma, as its as about as senseless as there out dated economic policy based on Maggots 1980s economic policy that failed the last time around. the fact is most people today will never see there pensions or will have to work till they drop. will this all help young unemployed people NO. As we will be working longer while keep them out of work. if you ask me the whole bloody thing is on big mess of the Tory parties making.

Well posted RCW.

Are public sector pensions really unaffordable? - Page 2 Mrmago10

HATS OFF TO YOU

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:33 am

Stox,

For 30yrs the labour party and the tory party have been akin to a wrestling tag team. They have both fought from the same corner no matter which of them has took their turn in the ring.

The goal, I think, is to drive down the wages, living standards, and expectations of British workers in order to compete in a global economy.

1949 - 1979: the share of income going to the top 0.1% of earners decreased from 3.5% to 1.3%. By 2000 their share had increased to 4.6%. Under Labour '97 - 2010 inequality continued to grow at pace. Anaylisis reveals that between '97 - 2008 (prior to recession) the bottom 50% of persons saw income growth of 7.2%, while the top 10% saw income growth of 13.1%, the top 1% income grew by 34%, and the very top 0.1% saw income grow by 64%.

The richest 1,000 persons now sit atop of £414bn, a sum more than three times the size of the entire UK budget deficit. The richest 1% of the population, about 300,000 persons with an income of more than £3,000 a week, are estimated to possess wealth of about £1trillion. The richest 10% control wealth of about £4trillion. To put these figures in perspective, Britain's total GDP is £1.45trillion. What they've gained in the past 30yrs could more than pay off our deficit and still leave them filthy rich.

....and we wonder why the economies in crisis, where all the money went, and why we have to suffer stagnating wages, austerity, and hardship?

oftenwrong, suggested elsewhere that this is the 'politics of envy'. I tend to think it's more to do with the politics of unfettered greed, and wreckless social irresponsibility, of the very wealthy.

by Stox 16 Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:12 am

sickchip wrote:Stox,

For 30yrs the labour party and the tory party have been akin to a wrestling tag team. They have both fought from the same corner no matter which of them has took their turn in the ring.

The goal, I think, is to drive down the wages, living standards, and expectations of British workers in order to compete in a global economy.

1949 - 1979: the share of income going to the top 0.1% of earners decreased from 3.5% to 1.3%. By 2000 their share had increased to 4.6%. Under Labour '97 - 2010 inequality continued to grow at pace. Anaylisis reveals that between '97 - 2008 (prior to recession) the bottom 50% of persons saw income growth of 7.2%, while the top 10% saw income growth of 13.1%, the top 1% income grew by 34%, and the very top 0.1% saw income grow by 64%.

The richest 1,000 persons now sit atop of £414bn, a sum more than three times the size of the entire UK budget deficit. The richest 1% of the population, about 300,000 persons with an income of more than £3,000 a week, are estimated to possess wealth of about £1trillion. The richest 10% control wealth of about £4trillion. To put these figures in perspective, Britain's total GDP is £1.45trillion. What they've gained in the past 30yrs could more than pay off our deficit and still leave them filthy rich.

....and we wonder why the economies in crisis, where all the money went, and why we have to suffer stagnating wages, austerity, and hardship?

oftenwrong, suggested elsewhere that this is the 'politics of envy'. I tend to think it's more to do with the politics of unfettered greed, and wreckless social irresponsibility, of the very wealthy.

Hi Sickchip
Well i am sad to report my friend that inequality did not start just 30 years ago. in fact Recent assessments emphasise the great differences between the wealthy and the poor during the Edwardian era and describe the age as heralding great changes in political and social life. The period from 1901, which has been described by many historians as the Edwardian summer, was in fact a bonanza for the rich. Like the first decade of this century, the divide between rich and poor widened.

By 1910, citing financial constraints, Liberal reforms were coming to an end. Even prior to 1910 grievances had accumulated over poor working conditions, discipline at work, and the failure of wages to keep pace with rising prices. After increasing for many years, real wages had ceased to grow from the turn of the century, and had declined by 10% by 1910. In the following years retail prices rose while wage rates stagnated or fell as the rich wallowed in their new-found luxuries.

in fact the figure for this period in economic history have never been match and dwarf any economic data to this very day. However, Sickchip while I and you may well dislike the economics of inequality it has been with us for many 100s of years. but if we are to look at the last 30 years only then we have to first of all except that Maggot change the whole economic dynamic of inequality. yet I note from you post that you wish to tie the Labour party into this change and have used figures to support this view. I would argue that by the time the Labour party took over the whole dye had already be well set in the seeds of the 1980s. I would how ever agree that it was a big mistake not to redress and this is a failure. yet in some areas they did address this issue. not as far as you may of wished for but never the less they did it all the same. however, its not inequality that distoryed the world banking system or that has left us with a pension system that has failed today. but Tory economic mismanagement of the 1980s that we are having to face today. the bottom line is there will always be inequality Sickchip wether i like it or not. the question is about the 70% of the UK population that I worry about not the 30% or the 1% above them. as they will still be there long after I am no more.

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:36 pm

Assuming that an Omnipotent God were to redistribute the World's wealth in equal proportion tomorrow, what would happen? Everyone has an equal share, so what happens now?

Those who were the wealthiest previously will sell to the nouveaux-riche everything their little hearts desire, and can now pay for.

So within six months all the money will have flowed back to where it was originally.

by Mel Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:51 pm

The tide of wealth. Sad

"Assuming that an Omnipotent God were to redistribute the World's wealth in equal proportion tomorrow"

Could that possibly be Odin Cameron and Co ?????

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:00 pm

Its so easy to have a wish list with the redistribute the World's wealth in equal proportion on it. but can anyone really believe this could ever take place today? I think is just a nice romantic dream for the idealistic among us. the best that can happen is that governments try to stop people going down into utter poverty while trying to do its best for the majority. something this government will never do in 100 years.

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:00 pm

Stox,

You missed the point in my post.

1949 - 1979: the share of income going to the top 0.1% of earners decreased from 3.5% to 1.3%.

Things had started heading in the right direction, with the help of Labour, and the unions. That progress came to an abrupt halt, coincidentally, with Thatcher's government.

Since '79 the general workforces share of GDP shrunk by 12% up to 2008.....and their share is still shrinking. That money has been redirected/redistributed back into the hands of the few.

So you can see that from 1949 to 1979 we had started to achieve fairer levels of equality; and then that process was slammed into reverse, and the wealthy classes, wagemasters, etc clawed back what the general workforce had fought for and gained. In fact the rich have took it back with interest.

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:03 pm

oftenwrong,

Assuming that an Omnipotent God were to redistribute the World's wealth in equal proportion

Nobody wants that - nor is anybody suggesting that. A thoroughly ridiculous notion.

by Stox 16 Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:21 pm

sickchip wrote:Stox,

You missed the point in my post.

1949 - 1979: the share of income going to the top 0.1% of earners decreased from 3.5% to 1.3%.

Things had started heading in the right direction, with the help of Labour, and the unions. That progress came to an abrupt halt, coincidentally, with Thatcher's government.

Since '79 the general workforces share of GDP shrunk by 12% up to 2008.....and their share is still shrinking. That money has been redirected/redistributed back into the hands of the few.

So you can see that from 1949 to 1979 we had started to achieve fairer levels of equality; and then that process was slammed into reverse, and the wealthy classes, wagemasters, etc clawed back what the general workforce had fought for and gained. In fact the rich have took it back with interest.

O sorry Chip, how stupid of me not to check Chip

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:26 pm

oftenwrong,

It is not complete income equality that is being sought; it is an end to the obscene, destructive, and socially damaging differentials that decades of neo liberal capitalism has produced.

We don't want complete equality - that is pointless and removes incentive.

What we want is a reasonable level of inequality.

by sickchip Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:30 pm

No worries, Stox.

by oftenwrong Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:07 pm

Politicians tend to think within the four-year time-frame between General Elections, but the gap between Rich and Poor in this Country is nothing like what it was between the two World Wars. The average working family did not own their home, it was rented. They certainly did not own a Motor Car. Dad's locomotion was likely to be a bicycle. Mother had a "meat-safe" in place of a refrigerator, no washing-machine, and coal fires instead of central heating. They had an unpaid holiday when the factory closed for Wakes' Week, sleeping five-to-a-bed in a Blackpool boarding-house. Tens of thousands of people were "in service" with middle-class families, and Orphanages would train their occupants towards that purpose.

Cameron-Clegg-Osborne see nothing wrong with a return to those arrangements.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:37 pm

" The average working family did not own their home, it was rented. They certainly did not own a Motor Car. Dad's locomotion was likely to be a bicycle. Mother had a "meat-safe" in place of a refrigerator, no washing-machine, and coal fires instead of central heating. They had an unpaid holiday when the factory closed for Wakes' Week, sleeping five-to-a-bed in a Blackpool boarding-house."

Never mind 'between the wars'. The description fits my own family's experience well after that period, except we never had the luxury of a holiday away in any boarding house, or anywhere else.

My own kids - who have more than is good for them in reality -cannot comprehend how I managed a childhood in such circumstances , still less how I remained perfectly happy doing so - and still could, if Fate decreed....

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:33 pm

I've never met anyone who didn't wish their children to "have a better life".

But there's an old Yorkshire phrase which repeatedly rings true, and that is "Clogs to clogs in three generations".

Grandad works himself into an early grave to make the family fortune, Dad keeps the business going, but then his kids hiss it up the wall.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:44 pm

Thanks for the timely warning. From now on, there's no more 'subsidies' for those wretches, although I shall have to tell them who's to blame, of course....

But not sure if I principally qualify as 'Grandad' or 'Dad' ...what the hell, where's that Range Rover catalogue...... Very Happy

by astra Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:53 pm

where's that Range Rover catalogue

Not the Bell Jetranger catalogue?

Might as well upset a few neighbours as well!! Smile

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:03 pm

With the cars my neighbours own, I have to sneak mine into the drive in the dark and pretend it's the window cleaner's...... Shocked

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:40 pm

A window-cleaner wouldn't be seen dead in our Family Limousine. It would cost us more money to scrap it than to keep it (mostly) legal on the road.

For Sale. One careful owner. Never raced or rallied. Only ever used to go to Church on Sundays. No time-wasters.

by astra Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:52 pm

With the cars my neighbours own, I have to sneak mine into the drive in the dark and pretend it's the window cleaner's......

I know the feeling!!

Hope you have matching curtains on the widows and windscreen! :affraid:

by trevorw2539 Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:54 am

astra wrote:
With the cars my neighbours own, I have to sneak mine into the drive in the dark and pretend it's the window cleaner's......

I know the feeling!!

Hope you have matching curtains on the widows and windscreen! :affraid:

Widows? What have you got. A HEARSE? Smile

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:19 pm

Suffice to say that -until very recently - my two sons and two daughters each drove a newer car than Dad. And three of 'em still do....! Shocked

by trevorw2539 Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:36 pm

Woman to friend. "I want my children to have everything I couldn't afford. Then I'll move in with them."

by oftenwrong Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:26 pm

I just want our children to have enough money to look after me in my old age.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:48 pm

I have been assured that as soon as my perceived usefulness is over, I am destined for a visit to the vets to be 'put down'. So, if the cash should unexpectedly run out, it will quickly be followed by me..... Shocked

by astra Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:58 pm

I won't let my daughter see that post Phil!

I keep the sign on the back of my caravan hidden from her, incidently, as it reads ........"Please drive carefully, you are following my offspring's inheritance! cheers

by oftenwrong Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:55 pm

If an individual declares that they cannot pay what they owe, they are described as a DEBTOR, but when a Government decides that it would be inconvenient to honour obligations to its employees, it can describe them as UNAFFORDABLE.

Let all my Creditors know that what I owe them is UNAFFORDABLE. Sorry Chaps!

by Stox 16 Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:51 am

oftenwrong wrote:If an individual declares that they cannot pay what they owe, they are described as a DEBTOR, but when a Government decides that it would be inconvenient to honour obligations to its employees, it can describe them as UNAFFORDABLE.

Let all my Creditors know that what I owe them is UNAFFORDABLE. Sorry Chaps!

a very nice reply OW. Well put I thought too

by oftenwrong Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:46 pm

The question of Pensions is a serious one, as is the allied problem of caring for old people unable to look after themselves. Statisticians calculate that Pensioners today require 4 taxpaying workers each to support them, and that the ratio will soon be two-to-one. At which point the workers may well decide that enough is enough.

The only solution will be for the Rich to look after the Poor voluntarily.

How likely is that?

by astra Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:26 pm

This from BBC Jockland

At existing oil prices and production levels, all North Sea taxes are, and will continue to be needed, to help fund the deficit that emerges from maintaining existing levels of public services.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17131564

Is this the establishment rubbishing Salmond's idea of an oil fund, like Norway and Saudi have, or is it the old scare mongering in the run up to the independence vote?

We have known since the Tories danced on No 10 in 1979 that the oil money has been squandered, but this is the first proof that I have seen - media, touch it lightly, but maybe, maybe a grain of truth.

by oftenwrong Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:30 pm

Alex Salmond is of course expert at trimming his sails according to the wind.

Joining the Eurozone is clearly now a non-starter, so alternatives have to be floated.

A Thatcher administration used North Sea Oil Revenue to stifle dissent with unquestioned benefits.

by Sponsored content

Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?

Re: Are public sector pensions really unaffordable?