Ouch!!

[Guest]

Is that it?

 

You think I don't know that people at different levels get different pensions?

 

Get back under your stone, old chap.

 

Explain what part of your post would demonstrate you did?

 

Not old BTW...

 

just happy..

[sebrof]

Not quite sure where to start on your normal biased post. Deregulation of the Banks but more important of The Stockmarket was "The Big Bang" of 1986 under Thatcher regulations were further reduced by Major.

 

The FSA themselves have admitted they got it wrong, and the FSA was the creation of Brown. Kindly eschew references to irrelevant history.

 

Nothing is repaid until it is paid. I could have found plenty of other examples of the taxpayer subsidising private business but life is to short.

 

Are you deliberately obtuse, or can't you help it? Where does the government's money come from if not from the private sector? Just because there is sometimes a subsidy (normally a drop in the ocean) to a few firms doesn't mean that the private sector doesn't provide the nation with the revenue that pays for government services.

 

Not sure what you know about my pension but it is fully indexed linked. My Daughter and Son are both in final salary pensions, and yes my old company still does final salary pension.

 

If you are correct, you are very lucky and very unusual. As for your kids, I notice you didn't say whether their schemes are still open to new employees. Most public company final-salary schemes are closed to new entrants.

 

Well one common theme seems to be Thatcher you seem to forget the property slump under Thatcher when more houses were repossessed than at any other time in modern history.

 

Another totally irrelevant point. Try to keep to the subject, old chap. We are discussing the present predicament, not the Boer War, or Wat Tyler's Revolt.

 

If you could quote where I have slagged anyone off I'm happy to remove the post.I've said this before and I'm still awaiting an example.

 

Nina. As you know full well.

[carlt]

Nina. As you know full well.

Nothing I have said about her was offensive. If she was ashamed of her racist views then why express them in public? If she is proud of them then she should be happy to be recognised as a bigot.

 

Back on my ignore list you go. There is no point to you and your absence from my screen is a bonus, not a loss.

[David Schweizer]

Do get your facts right, old chap.

 

Pension payments have always been taxed. It's the income received by the pension funds that G Brown started taxing. And that mainly applies to private sector pensions, because most government pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no fund.

 

As you seem to be incapable of separating Civil Service pensions with Local Government Pension schemes, I will seek to enlighten you. Local Government Pensions schemes do have funds, and Pensions are not paid out of current revenue. I have in front of me, the 2010 accounts for the Avon Pension Fund which show a capital reserve of £2458.6 millon. Income from employee contributions for the preceeding year were £150 million, returns from investments were £ £621.6 millions. Pension payments were £132.1 million, which gives a net Surplus of £639.5 million.

 

I would suggest that you seek to get your facts right, and stop playing the Daily Mail trick of tarring everyone with the same predjudiced opinions and unsupported claims.

Edited October 2, 2011 by David Schweizer

[sebrof]

As you seem to be incapable of separating Civil Service pensions with Local Government Pension schemes, I will seek to enlighten you. Local Government Pensions schemes do have funds, and Pensions are not paid out of current revenue. I have in front of me, the 2010 accounts for the Avon Pension Fund which show a capital reserve of £2458.6 millon. Income from employee contributions for the preceeding year were £150 million, returns from investments were £ £621.6 millions. Pension payments were £132.1 million, which gives a net Surplus of £639.5 million.

 

I would suggest that you seek to get your facts right, and stop playing the Daily Mail trick of tarring everyone with the same predjudiced opinions and unsupported claims.

 

I said "And that mainly applies to private sector pensions, because most government pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no fund.".

 

Most is not all, and government means government, not local government.

 

The Avon pension fund is an exempt approved fund under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and therefore does not pay tax, unlike private sector schemes. It was the payment of tax you were unclear about, and you are now better informed. Just so you fully comprehend: Your pension scheme is not taxed (unlike private sector schemes), and you do pay income tax on your pension income.

 

Savvy?

 

Good night.

[David Schweizer]

I said "And that mainly applies to private sector pensions, because most government pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no fund.".

 

Most is not all, and government means government, not local government.

 

The Avon pension fund is an exempt approved fund under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and therefore does not pay tax, unlike private sector schemes. It was the payment of tax you were unclear about, and you are now better informed. Just so you fully comprehend: Your pension scheme is not taxed (unlike private sector schemes), and you do pay income tax on your pension income.

 

Savvy?

 

Good night.

Why is it that every time someone points out that you are wrong, that you seek to expand your original statement in an attempt to make the poster look foolish, and then seek to tell the poster what they already know? All your Vitreol was stimulated by my referral to Local Government Pensions, not Civil Service pensions, yet you continue to deliberately seek to confuse the issue, by referring generically to Public Sector, thereby including Teachers, Refuse collectors, Local Government Workers, Social Workers, Planning Officers, Police Officers, Fire Officers etc etc, none of whom are Civil Servants and none of whom are covered by your blanket statements about Pensions and Pensions Schemes.

 

You have dug yourself a hole and instead of trying to get out, you continue to dig. You know that half your observations do not apply to many catagories of Public servants, but you continue to include them in your ridiculous claims. Why can you not accept that when referring to Local Government staff, you are simply wrong?

Edited October 3, 2011 by David Schweizer

[cotswoldsman]

Do get your facts right, old chap.

 

Pension payments have always been taxed. It's the income received by the pension funds that G Brown started taxing. And that mainly applies to private sector pensions, because most government pensions are paid out of current revenue. There is no fund.

 

 

 

 

 

Again you are wrong it is dividends from shares that were taxed, capital gain etc is still tax exempt or atracts tax relief. The income from dividends only represents a fairly small percentage.

 

The FSA themselves have admitted they got it wrong, and the FSA was the creation of Brown. Kindly eschew references to irrelevant history.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you now rewriting history the FSA was founded in 1985 are you saying Thatcher was Brown in drag?

[mayalld]

What sector? - can't be the NHS because if you draw before your retirement age your pension is 'actuarially reduced' to account for the fact you are drawing it early and haven't made your full contributions.

 

 

Unless it is being paid early due to Ill Health retirement.

 

There are also certain classes of employee in various schemes who have earlier retirement dates than the rest.

[Naughty Cal]

Mine's nearer £800 for 12 months. So 6% is going to be noticeable.

 

You chose to have a bigger boat.

[David Schweizer]

Unless it is being paid early due to Ill Health retirement.

 

There are also certain classes of employee in various schemes who have earlier retirement dates than the rest.

Keep up Dave, I already said that in post 46.

 

Perhaps it also needs to be explained that if a person decides to retire early, their pension is not actually reduced as has been suggested by others, they just do not get as much. All the Public Sector Final Salary Pension Schemes that I am aware of, are based upon the number of years they have worked and been in membershipm of the scheme, usually up to a maximum of forty years. In most schemes the employee will recieve one eightyth of their final salary for each full year in m embership of the scheme, which means that after the maximum forty years service they will receive half their final salary as a pension.

 

When an Employee is made redundant and offered early retirement on Grounds of Efficiency, (Interesting phrase that!) the Employer can at their discretion offer an enhancement of a number of years up to a maximum of ten years, however in order to benefit from this facility the Employee has to commute most, if not all, of their redundancy payment to cover their additional year's contributions. Where an employee is retired on ill health grounds the maximimum enhancement is usually six and two thirds years, and unless the rules have changed, the Employee does not normally have to make up their own addituional yeras contributions.

 

There are some exceptions including, I believe, the Police who receive a higher level of pension, but they also have to contribute a much larger proportion of their income into the scheme whilst working.

[mayalld]

Keep up Dave, I already said that in post 46.

 

Perhaps it also needs to be explained that if a person decides to retire early, their pension is not actually reduced as has been suggested by others, they just do not get as much.

 

No, that isn't the case with most schemes.

 

Retiring early has TWO potential effects on a pension. Both have the same kind of impact (smaller pension), and both can in some cases be waived.

 

1) Reduced pension due to reduced Length of service, which applies even if you retire at 55 but don't draw a pension until 60.

 

If you retire at age 55, with 35 years service, then the starting point for pension is 35/80ths or 35/60ths as the case may be, reflecting the fact that you have paid less into the pension. Some employers offer an enhancement of up to 6.67 years of service to encourage people to retire early without affecting the starting point for pension.

 

2) Actuarial reduction for early payment.

 

This reflects the fact that if you retire at 55, you will draw a pension for 5 years longer than if you retire at 60. The bit of the pot that is set aside to pay your benefits has to stretch further. This is usually waived for Ill health retirements (on the assumption that if you are retiring on ill health you have a reduced life expectancy?) and some employers waive it in other cases to encourage people to go.

[David Schweizer]

No, that isn't the case with most schemes.

 

Retiring early has TWO potential effects on a pension. Both have the same kind of impact (smaller pension), and both can in some cases be waived.

 

1) Reduced pension due to reduced Length of service, which applies even if you retire at 55 but don't draw a pension until 60.

 

If you retire at age 55, with 35 years service, then the starting point for pension is 35/80ths or 35/60ths as the case may be, reflecting the fact that you have paid less into the pension. Some employers offer an enhancement of up to 6.67 years of service to encourage people to retire early without affecting the starting point for pension.

 

2) Actuarial reduction for early payment.

 

This reflects the fact that if you retire at 55, you will draw a pension for 5 years longer than if you retire at 60. The bit of the pot that is set aside to pay your benefits has to stretch further. This is usually waived for Ill health retirements (on the assumption that if you are retiring on ill health you have a reduced life expectancy?) and some employers waive it in other cases to encourage people to go.

That all sounds very similar to what I have already said!

[sebrof]

Why is it that every time someone points out that you are wrong, that you seek to expand your original statement in an attempt to make the poster look foolish, and then seek to tell the poster what they already know? All your Vitreol was stimulated by my referral to Local Government Pensions, not Civil Service pensions, yet you continue to deliberately seek to confuse the issue, by referring generically to Public Sector, thereby including Teachers, Refuse collectors, Local Government Workers, Social Workers, Planning Officers, Police Officers, Fire Officers etc etc, none of whom are Civil Servants and none of whom are covered by your blanket statements about Pensions and Pensions Schemes.

 

You have dug yourself a hole and instead of trying to get out, you continue to dig. You know that half your observations do not apply to many catagories of Public servants, but you continue to include them in your ridiculous claims. Why can you not accept that when referring to Local Government staff, you are simply wrong?

 

Mr S, when I say government I mean central government. When I say local government I mean local government.

 

You have confused the issue by talking about income tax on your personal pension income, in response to my statement that private pension schemes are taxed on the income the scheme receives. Your scheme is public sector and is not taxed on its income, unlike private sector schemes which are. That is the point I was making, and you are still trying to confuse the issue and claim I was wrong.

Edited October 3, 2011 by sebrof

[sebrof]

Again you are wrong it is dividends from shares that were taxed, capital gain etc is still tax exempt or atracts tax relief. The income from dividends only represents a fairly small percentage.

 

No, pensions schemes are conservative investors, and tend to keep investments for the long term. They make little money from capital gains. That is why, when Brown starting taxing pension scheme income the effect was to reduce the value of schemes by nearly a third, putting most of them into deficit. As a result, companies were obliged to pay much more into their schemes to bring them into balance with their liabilities. This reduced profits, and hence corporation tax, so Brown's clever wheeze backfired and it was reckoned that there was little benefit to overall tax receipts.

 

Are you now rewriting history the FSA was founded in 1985 are you saying Thatcher was Brown in drag?

 

Quite right. It did exist previously. What Brown did was to transfer supervision of the banks from the Bank of England to the FSA, and that is where it all went wrong.

 

Explain what part of your post would demonstrate you did?

 

Not old BTW...

 

just happy..

 

Fine, Happy Young Chappie,

 

You will note that I omitted to mention in my post that I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. That doesn't mean I do believe it. It would make for some very long posts if I were obliged to set out all my beliefs in full in order to prevent you from making erroneous and illogical assumptions.

[Athy]

Well, this would be fine if it was £3.61 in isolation, but it isn't. Gas and electricity increases up to 19%, rail fares if you commute, petrol and diesel, food prices, these and others all rising above the rate of inflation.

But isn't the rate of inflation calculated largely upon the prices of these goods? If so, how can they all be rising above the rate of inflation, when they are its major contributory factor?

I really don't know the answer and would welcome enlightenment.

[Bob Blues]

A couple????

I wish!

 

Not even a Pint in London!

[David Schweizer]

Mr S, when I say government I mean central government. When I say local government I mean local government.

 

You have confused the issue by talking about income tax on your personal pension income, in response to my statement that private pension schemes are taxed on the income the scheme receives. Your scheme is public sector and is not taxed on its income, unlike private sector schemes which are. That is the point I was making, and you are still trying to confuse the issue and claim I was wrong.

But you don't say that do you? It is you who is deliberately confusing the two by constantly darting back and forth betweeen the terms "Public Sector" (which includes Local Government) and "Government".

 

But why should I worry? you seem to have quite a few critics, and no supporters.

[Morat]

Oh dear, oh, dear, oh dear.

 

Do I detect a touch of the green eyed monster here?

 

Jealousy is such an ugly emotion!

 

So who teaches/taught your kids then? (assuming you have any) Parasites?

 

Thats a nice way of showing your offspring how much you respect their teachers, innit.

 

SAM

Ryde

IOW

 

Go on, guess how I earn my living.........................

 

Of course, the BEST teachers are in the private sector

[Ssscrudddy]

My first job in the private sector paid well, but I was not allowed to join the pension scheme until I had completed 10 years service. This pension scheme included me & the employer making contribuitons. 6 months after joining the pension scheme, we was bought out by another company, who immediately closed the pension scheme & didnt offer a new one, sacked 1/3 of the staff, put up the hours from 35 to 40 hours per week, reduced the holidays from 28 to 20 days per year, & those remaining had to take on the extra work for a 5% pay cut in actual pay (not playing with numbers to account for lost holidays, lost employer contribution to pension, extra hours worked). Everyone was sacked & only 2/3 offered their job back at the new rates, no redundancies.

 

When I worked for the Public Sector, I was not allowed to join the pension scheme until I had completed 10 years service. 28 days holiday per year, 37.5 hours per week over 5 out of 6 days, full days Monday to Saturday, always had Sunday off (& 1 other rotating day per week). Hours of work were between 7.15 am - 6 pm (1 week early shift next week late shift)

When this job was transferred to the private sector, the terms of employment were protected for 1 year. when this year was up the terms of employment changed (everyone on the council terms was sacked, not made redundant, & then offered the new contract)

So the exact same job, pay cut by £6,000 per year. Hours increased from 37.5 to 45 hours per week. Hours of work changed from between 7.15 am to 6.30 pm to between 7.00am to 2.00 am, not neccesarily a full shift, you could start at 7.00 am have a few hours off in between & then come back to finish at 2.00 am & still have to start at 7.00 am the next day. Work now included Sundays as well, never a guaranteed day off, the weekly hours were often spread over 7 days. No overtime rates, & holidays cut from 28 to 20 days per year. The uniform now had to bought from the new employer at over inflated rates, eg a pair of police issue boots which could be bought at the local Walkers shop for £90 now had to be purchased from the new employer at £150 for the same boots. (The uniform was previously issued free of charge when public sector) The uniform changed 3 times in that 1st year. Now all employees for the same job are on minimum wage. No pension scheme.

 

Instead of bitching about oh they've got it better than us, lets make it worse for them, evryone should band together to get decent pay & conditions for everyone, instead of making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

 

So the politicians would have you believe everyone in the public sector has some gold plated pension scheme & lots of other perks. The same as they would have you believe everyone on benefits is work shy & raking it in. To put it simply, this just isnt true. The reality is people everywhere are on varied conditions. The rich & powerful want everyones conditions to get worse & worse so that they can have more money for themselves.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Ssscrudddy

[bottle]

Bit late now but you lot keep on about pensions push off and start your own thread.

 

[Laurie Booth]

Bit late now but you lot keep on about pensions push off and start your own thread.

 

At last, a sensible post.

[carlt]

Bit late now but you lot keep on about pensions push off and start your own thread.

 

What did you say, young man?

[deletedaccount]

Instead of bitching about oh they've got it better than us, lets make it worse for them, evryone should band together to get decent pay & conditions for everyone, instead of making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

 

So the politicians would have you believe everyone in the public sector has some gold plated pension scheme & lots of other perks. The same as they would have you believe everyone on benefits is work shy & raking it in. To put it simply, this just isnt true. The reality is people everywhere are on varied conditions. The rich & powerful want everyones conditions to get worse & worse so that they can have more money for themselves.

 

this

[sebrof]

But isn't the rate of inflation calculated largely upon the prices of these goods? If so, how can they all be rising above the rate of inflation, when they are its major contributory factor?

I really don't know the answer and would welcome enlightenment.

 

You'll find it all explained on the National Statistics website.

 

Indices of inflation are based on a notional basket of goods and services that the average household would buy. Of course, nobody is average, so the index will not necessarily reflect your own personal experience very closely.

 

Pensioners tend to do badly because a higher proportion of their total expenditure goes on energy and food, both of which have been rising faster than most others things in the past few years. For many people, I suspect that the current level of inflation is nearer to 9%.

 

The low price of goods imported from China has kept inflation down - for those who buy things made in China. For those who don't, inflation will be significantly higher than the official figures.

[sebrof]

But you don't say that do you? It is you who is deliberately confusing the two by constantly darting back and forth betweeen the terms "Public Sector" (which includes Local Government) and "Government".

 

But why should I worry? you seem to have quite a few critics, and no supporters.

 

You have obviously never heard of the silent majority.

 

If you exclude the usual suspects, who love to get stuck in whether they have anything sensible to say or not, you'll find that your own support is not quite as massive as you like to think.

 

Whilst I admit that elements of my original post ("parasites", for example) were deliberately a little provocative in order to generate discussion, the main thrust is very relevant. Since 1997 there has been an explosion in the size and cost of the public sector, and it isn't sustainable. Something has to go, and unfunded pensions are one part of it.

 

In some ways, our economic situation is as bad as that of Greece, and it seems that UK unions are trying to emulate Greece in another way - by going on strike in support of totally unrealistic goals. All they will achieve will be to make a bad situation worse. Things are not helped by Labour trying to undermine efforts to sort out the problem they created.

 

And before you mention the Daily Mail again, I was once a full member of the Labour Party, and have never voted Tory in my life. Though I suspect that might change in 2105.

 

BTW, I am delighted to see that Avon has a surplus on its pension scheme, and am very happy to concede that not all public sector pensions are unfunded or non-contributory.