Tenner Tantrums.
I am thoroughly enjoying the outrage over the proposed increases in contributions to public sector pensions – they have a £4 billion shortfall to make up this year alone.
The term ‘ponzi scheme’ has been overused, but it is useful to remind ourselves that all pensions have become a ponzi – those currently paying into the scheme are not saving for their own pensions, they are paying for the pensions of their bosses and heads of department who have already retired.
Remember that next time you hear a howl of rage from the public sector – public sector workers object more violently than anyone to paying more to those whose shoes they stepped into – that is why they think that if the lazy good for nothings who retired early on 30% of salary are to get any more money, anyone but them should be stumping up to pay for it – and that is why they think the rest of us should pay the bill.
The same reasoning holds true for the BBC – no one knows better than those who have inherited the jobs of the recently retired, how little they deserve to be able to sit back at a young age and draw their pension. The ones now clearing up the mess of years of inefficiency and incompetence are experts on the behaviour of the recently retired – they worked under them for years – and see no reason why they should have to work even longer years and hand over more of their pay packet in order to keep the old gits in clover.
The rest of us merely suspect that it is unfair that we should dig deeper in our pockets to provide their gold plated pensions – those public sector workers actually know how unfair it is – they knew the recipients.
-
1
October 7, 2010 at 10:50 -
Hear Hear!
-
2
October 7, 2010 at 10:58 -
Well – public sector pensions are what they are. Of course they are too generous.
However, what I really object to is the crass madness that allows them to start working after their ‘retirement’, often in another public sector role, often with a good salary………and also earning another ‘pension’.
A prime example of this are the retired coppers who then go and work for various government departments doing security or anti-fraud work……. to summarize they get……..pension………salary………and earn more pension.
Three big wins – all on the tax-payer. They should in no way be able to earn a second pension – or even a gratuity – it is ridiculous.
-
3
October 7, 2010 at 13:25 -
How many people, SA, have for the last 25 years or so been paying not 4% of gross salary as superannuation, like many others in both public and private sectors, but 11½%? Coppers have.
-
4
October 7, 2010 at 13:38 -
I’ve got nothing against coppers mate – I am one.
I have a huge problem with them – and any other public servants – pulling stunts like this though.
Why does anyone deserve 2 pensions……..3 if you count the state OAP?
-
5
October 7, 2010 at 14:05 -
OK, fine. So how many coppers , of whatever rank, can retire on qualifying for a pension, and then get another job as a copper? June Ackland did, in The Bill, but it’s not allowed in real life. There’s nothing more ex than an ex-copper. Now teachers, who can retire on a pension, and then get another job as a supply teacher? And what about firefighters, who can work two jobs at the same time, even before retirement? And politicians at all levels? Many people have a huge problem with coppers, occasionally with reason, but I doubt if their retirement packages are as questionable as many other people’s, whether in the public or private sector. Or are you saying that publicly-employed people, uniquely, should be forbidden from seeking ways of earning money after retirement?
-
6
October 8, 2010 at 01:35 -
If you read what I wrote, I emphasise that the real iniquity is the fact that many retired public servants earn further pension entitlements in their new jobs………so they end up with 3 pensions (all funded by the tax-payer). Can’t be right.
I know it is an extreme example, but take the ACPO – a recently retired Chief Constable was probably on about £170,000 p.a ……….equates to an annual pension of £110,000 p.a………….. and an ACPO salary is about £120,000 p.a. PLUS £30,000 pension contributions PLUS a grace-and-favour flat in London.
An extreme example I know – but many PCs, Sgts & Inspectors find jobs in places like the NHS – earning police pension, new salary, further pension.
As for politicians – well, if the government is serious about reducing the nation’s pension debt, then MPs have to set an example don’t they?
-
-
-
-
7
October 7, 2010 at 13:44 -
A guy I know worked in the local planning dept. Quite high up, one of the bosses. He retired, and promptly signed up as a ‘consultant’ working in the same dept, doing the same job. Same money, but less hours. So he gets his pension AND his consultants fee. Madness.
-
-
8
October 7, 2010 at 12:06 -
And yet they still trot out the old chestnut that the pension perks are to ‘compensate’ for low pay. So, pay them more and let them sort out their own pension.
But make sure there’s fewer of them!
-
9
October 7, 2010 at 12:11 -
And stop giving them ‘gongs’ for doing the job they are supposed to be paid for !!!!
-
10
October 7, 2010 at 12:50 -
Of course the reason there is no public sector pension pot is that such a fund would be the biggest pot of money in the world. It’s manager would weild more power over the economy than the Chancellor. He would be more powerful than the Prime Minister. And totally unaccountable. What we need is have everyone contribute to a SIPP or something similar. Simple, cheap. INDIVIDUAL.
Obviously final salary schemes need to go everywhere.
-
11
October 7, 2010 at 13:06 -
Final salary pension (FSP) schemes have already gone in the private sector, but most are frozen at the point of changeover. FSPs were on average 1/60th per year worked x salary on retirement. This menas that if one is, say, 50 when the pension provision changes after working 10 years for the company, the FSP part of your overall pension will be 10/60ths of your salary on retirement, not your salary at 50 when the scheme changed.
This is significant, as all those lucky public sector “workers” will still have increasing pension pots from the FSP schemes. Most will try to (& probably be allowed to) boost their salaries during their retirement year to further increase the yield.
Sorry to be long-winded, but there is an increasing and hidden cost here that will go on increasing over many years, even if the FSPs are all frozen now. -
12
October 7, 2010 at 18:06 -
Private sector pensions usually work on 60ths, public sector pensions are usually based on 80ths.
I don’t remember anyone shouting to roll back private sector pensions when the stock markets were high or making a fuss when bank workers received cheap mortgages. Most (all?) public sector workers don’t get any benefits in kind. This all sounds like what happened with endowment mortgages; they were a ‘good’ thing when the markets were breaking records but suddenly became ‘mis-sold’ when the markets dived.
-
13
October 7, 2010 at 19:17 -
For starters they could be made to retire at 65 (or whatever the age changes to) and those going early get penalised the same way anyone else does.
I do like the idea of pay them more, but have less of them, and let them sort out a private pension the same as the rest of us.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }