To think when the state pension is removed, the social contract is broken?

A large red loo brush should be available in every public toilet, with a large sign suggesting that it should be used if you poohed!

I can manage that. If I have poohed in the loo, I think it is my responsibility to scrub off any skidmarks!

If there were no bog washers, there would be a polite note in every loo suggesting that the loo brush should be used after every poo.

No I don’t, because that’s not how representative democracy works 🤷🏻‍♀️

Someone is going to have to tackle it though - I just hope it’s a UK government rather than the IMF (and ideally, only after I’ve hammered DH’s rather splendid pension income!)

2 months. 8 weeks. 😢

Would you? Good for you. Thankfully you have no power to.

Oh dear, @Differentforgirls, weren’t you ticking someone off for “personal attacks” a few pages ago?

I am very much employed, and have been for 35 years without a break except when I took <2 months off to have DS. Bog-washer was a sarcastic example of a low-paid job. And you’re missing the point again - it’s not about how essential (or not) aforementioned bog-washers are, it’s about whether we can afford to continue giving them (and every other bugger in the public sector) a honking great gravity-defying pension for life at the public expense, whilst talking about removing £200 a week in SP from all but the poorest.

I would be fixing the public sector pension disparity first.

I take it you’re unemployed?

“Bog washer” says a lot about you. If it wasn’t for “bog washers” companies would be fucked. What is it you do?

Ah but you’ve already said they earn fuck all. And 6% of fuck all is…. 😂

(Not enough for a multi-million pension pot?!)

Okay it’s deferred from their salary - which would need to be hundreds of thousands a year btw, if someone were to accrue a sufficient pension pot to buy an equivalent annuity. But yes, every single bog-washer employed by the council is totally worth that, even if they’re currently enjoying 6 months off sick on full pay. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Is that what I’m supposed to say? Because it has no basis in commercial reality, you do realise that?

Plus they pay, at least, 6% of their wages into it.

So, it must be down to area. My son was 23 when he bought his home.

However, that was with his partner which obviously makes it easier than a single person trying to buy.

Like me really as I could never have afforded my first (and last btw) house if I was single.

I know, by being on here, how hard it is for young people now with regard to property but my lived experience is different.

My other son bought his flat on his own though.

If you genuinely believe your final paragraph, I am afraid you are seriously misguided. It’s rare as hen’s teeth for a private sector employer to pay more than 10% and in order to receive that much, it typically has to be matched by the employee.

And even if a private sector employee does that, the end result is not (literally, absolutely, never) an index-linked defined benefit pension for life. That’s is why public sector pensions are so-called gold plated. You might be able to purchase a healthy annuity whilst hedging your bets between lump sums and longevity, but that’s about as good as it gets.

And yes, ultimately all of this is funded by the wealth-creating private sector, because literally everything else is just shuffling the same money around.

As I said, I’m selfishly all in favour of the NHS pension scheme because it’s going to allow me to fuck off on holiday every Winter for the rest of my life. But it’s absolutely mendacious BS to suggest that we could have an equivalent retirement if we upped our contributions a tad. (My DSis is an actuary and would find the idea hilarious - it’s literally in the realm of “stop eating avocados and you’d have a house deposit”).

how much so you think the average private sector worker gets in employer pension contributions?

Well it's a good job you aren't in a position to take that contributory pension away from low paid workers while surviving on your partners 90k pension plus the £25k you'll jointly get from the state.

Because it's deferred salary. It's part of their overall package. Which part of that is unfair? That is the deal they signed up for. If you signed a different deal, that's on you.

The young people won’t be able to build wealth in any European country as the pension system is going to fail across Europe. There is not enough people working or contributing, antisocial behaviour costs the government’s millions, the speedy rise of unskilled citizens across Europe is costing billions, society has declined across the board, without incentives it will get worse.

I'm pleased you agree that private sector employees are not funding public sector pay and pensions.

Again, you have misquoted me. I did not say 'salary deferral', I said that pension is deferred salary.

Of course it's jam today if you choose to pay the 3% minimum rather than the 9-10% demanded by public sector schemes. If you invested 10% (and your employer contributions) for 30 years you could match the public sector.

24

@Differentforgirls its been repeatedly pointed out to you on this thread that low-paid employees with a public sector DB pension have a far more generous retirement income than a person earning the same in a private sector, typically DC scheme. That’s because actuaries have decided they are the only sustainable long-term option, if the maths is going to math.

Literally nobody thinks they’re “loaded”. Just relatively better-off to a degree that some people (me included) think is unfair.

I was local government too which is funded, unlike other public pension schemes.

I think what the pp are forgetting is that any LA pension scheme applies to cleaners, dinner ladies, janitors, home carers, school admin staff etc.

Yet they seem to think these people are now loaded when they have worked for the living or minimum wage just like retail staff etc.

Much depends on what part of the public sector, and the job.

I worked in local government, in the North, for ten years pre retirement, housing officer, admin supervisor, fairly low level. I wouldn’t have earned as much in the private sector, or had such good T&C. Great pension scheme for long term employees, retirement at 55 being possible for some. There were also few I worked with who wouldn't have lasted in the private sector, there were some real time servers, and some with links to the largest political group. There were also some fantastic people, who went over and above in terms of public service.

However, in some professional jobs, people are paid far more, IT and finance professionals for instance.

Well you don't have to dream about it as your husband is getting one. A huge one.
You do realise that public sector workers taxes aren't seperated by the govt and that they ALL pay for the same things as private sector workers do including pension contributions for every other public sector worker?

Plus all these "lucky" public service workers are STILL PAYING TAX.

The private sector is the only way to create wealth, so yes all contributions to public sector pensions by anybody can ultimately be attributed to private capital.

I have the opposite of an axe to grind: I’ve quite clearly written that I intend to spend my retirement living mainly off my DH’s insanely generous NHS DB pension, and long may that continue. It’s accuracy I am after: the disparity between public and private sector schemes is not because private sector employees “choose jam today” FGS. It’s because they are - typically - not DB, not index-linked and not lifelong guaranteed. Those are not things that can be funded by a bit of “salary deferral” as you laughably suggested in your first post.

If the SP is unfair and needs sorting, then so does this debacle. As I wrote upthread, you can’t sensibly take £184 a month off Boris while most retired consultant doctors struggle on their £90k-odd a year.