to be completely confused about the strike on 30th Nov?

[seekinginspiration]

So far I've heard completely contradictory statements on the radio, tv and from individuals. A friend has been told that teachers need to work until they are 68 years old - even if the job is very physically hard work e.g. reception class? She's only just over 50 - so up till last year thought she would be able to retire at 60. What is the truth?

That is very hard to organise though as some may deliberately not save so they can just spend and rely on a state pension.

Obviously not if they know they can save really well .

The strikes are just an inconvenience for the government who wont/can't/shouldn't pay with our money they don't have.
The electorate will suffer specially the disadvantaged.
Yup,the disadvantaged.

Please don't kill me, but given the financial state of the country at the moment, don't we all have to accept that something has to give? Unfortunately, by working in the public sector, by definition the Government has a great degree of control over your working conditions. You knew that when you took the job. Why should the rest of the country have to continue to work longer and have extremely crappy pensions (as a Solicitor, qualified for nearly 4 years, I earn less than a newly qualified teacher and have no pension to speak of, so please don't tell me that private sector employees have a better deal...) while public sector workers get to retire several years earlier? Things have to change, and you need to accept that.

yeah,yeah, yeah, we are all in it together, aren't we?

EG:
Mick Davis, boss of mining firm Xstrata
Paid £18 million this year
Pension: est £2 million a year
Pays nothing: pension pot is 160 percent of salary
Came out to back the Tories before the election

Average worker in the civil service
Paid around £17,000
Pension: £4,000 a year
Pay more: extra £240 a year
Work longer: May not be able to retire until 68
Get less: £80,000 total loss

Stuff capitalism.

You've used the wrong examples.

Using an example of a private sector fat cat against the salary of an average wage in the public sector.

Leaders of councils/mp's and judges etc aren't exactly pissing in an empty pot.

And we the public are not paying the wages of a private company employee.

Oh by the way the pension pots of your trade union leaders are estimated at over £1 million each ! Same with many headteachers (see earlier post, and also I would imagine a number of NHS employees/MPs etc).

Brendan Barber, head of TUC, £1.8 million

Paul Kenny and Len McCluskey, heads of GMB and Unite, circa £1.5 million

By Hargreaves Lansdown actuary valuation.

The above is important . One of the best reorganisation of the schemes in my mind might include a floor (ie minimum pension gained ) and a ceiling (eg upto a ceiling of £75,000 of final salary used). This floor and ceiling approach is also mentioned in the report.

You can of course earn greater than £75,000 in wages but your accrual rate will be a percentage of upto £75,000.

Do you think the trade Union leaders will be as accepting of that when their own pension pots are so generous?

All reports I have heard on offers include keeping all pension benefits already contributed towards. It just means you effectively get 2 pensions (the old and new).

Obviously not if they know they can save really well

I'd love to know how to do that nowadays. (just got latest valuation of my piddling pension pot I've been contributing to all my working life - well what it will yield will be piddling, I've put in as much as possible - all funds down since June. )

Grimma the Nome I was counter balancing the idea that all people will not save just to get state provision later.

Oh, my assumption has always been that the state pension will be 2/5ths of bugger all by the time I retire so I've got to save. But right now I could understand people looking at investment 'returns', and think WTF?

It was to do with igglys post saying those with a decent work pension should forgo the state pension and I was pointing out the risk that may involve!

I know annuity rates and investments are poor.

Have to laugh at tesla's examples. Averages distort everything.

I don't find it funny.

You were actually serious with that stab at comparison ?

Teh mind boggles.

Actually I would argue the average that you gave for a civil servant may actually do very little to support your cause. There are currently 2 public sector pension schemes for civil servants in place.

Okay working out this example posted above:

Average worker in the civil service
Paid around £17,000
Pension: £4,000 a year

Okay assuming flat wage of £17,000 throughout:

On the old scheme:

1/60 accrual of final salary per year worked
3.5% employee contribution

This person would have worked for

Affordable???????????????????

More competition and better annuities in the private sector would really help. But this is part of what happens as population lives longer.

As iggly2 points out, the public sector are having a laugh at the expense of all private sector workers. They will receive pension benefits so far above any average private sector worker for such a small percentage of their monthly pay, that it is an insult they have voted to strike. How do they think everyone else feels, knowing that they are striking to maintain completely unsustainable pensions whilst the rest of the population could never hope to have even half what they will get under the new proposals.

Face facts, the population is living far longer than the social system ever expected, therefore no civil servant ever puts in sufficient payments to actually fund their fantastic pensions for the length of retirement they are likely to live for.

I have absolutely NO sympathy for anyone striking on Wednesday, they should be ashamed that they think the rest of the population should pay for their greedy retirement. They are no better than bloodsuckers.

I encountered a militant civil servant the other day who was reckoning she'd opt out and sort out her own pension ... I had to bite my lip very hard as it wasn't the right time and place to ask her if she had the slightest idea how little her contribution, albeit increased, would buy if she did so. Someone should have laid that out that option clearly for the disgruntled.

One area where I agree with the strikers is the anticipated rise in retirement age for teachers. I really don't think the job in a primary school is sustainable >60. And the government will inevitably save a lot of money when people retire early because the little ones are wearing them down.

Rise in contribution, RPI/CPI change and average salary, I can swallow.

Yes but Fraidy, you could argue the same for many other roles albeit it's easier to imagine why you may not want a 64 year old policeman on the front lines of a riot. Or a 60yr old nurse trying to lift an obese patient.

But at the same time what about the 64 year old construction worker? Or a deep sea diver? Fisherman?

It's hard to argue that a teacher should be allowed to retire younger than many other professions where there is more physical labour and danger involved.

But as I keep saying, this is nothing to do with what's right or wrong. Nothing to do with ideology. Basically people are living longer and as a result the same amount of money must be spent on more people. Hence less per person. It's simple mathematics. We all need to work longer and expect less back. Teachers along with other public sector workers need to accept this fact and move on.

It may become more fashionable to do a demanding job upto a certain age (getting your main pension from here) put a less physically/emotional demanding job till collecting pension at a later date. We will all have to adapt.

But what happens if a lot of public sector workers pull out of the scheme? I mean....the government needs those contributions don't they?