Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 23 August 2010, 17:34:45
-
The bad news: Over three-fifths of single pensioner households in Britain have a total pension income of less than £10,000.
The good news? We are to pay £135 million to ensure that those hard working eurocrats, who have cared so much for us, retire with an average pension of £57,194.
Well, they are so much more deserving than us, aren't they? ::) ::) >:(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7883915/EU-to-spend-1bn-on-pensions-for-retired-eurocrats-in-2010.html
-
£10,000?? That's far too much.
-
as part of being a shop steward I recently did an open learning package on pensions which was very informative. Didnt start my own pensions till I was quite old and now have a reasonable company pension. It used to be a final salary one but recently changed to a CARE (career average) one which means the better half gets far more if I die but my actual yearly pension is a bit less. Still, given the current demographic forecasts Id advise anyone to get one asap-particularly company ones as the employer makes a contribution as well. The earlier you start the better.(Probably too late for most of us older ones on here though ::)). STMOs point is well made though, those in the "big government " sector continue to do well out of our taxes. >:(
-
Bureaucratic discrimination not only in Britain
-
I agree with this but i think it's a common misconception that all public sector workers are on some sort of gravy train. I'm a firefighter, (don't agree with strikes and have never been on strike btw, I'm far from being a socialist). Firefighters pay good money into their pension (as do lots of public sector workers), and expect a good pension in return, just like anyone would do from an ISA etc or other financial product from a private firm. The public, especially those working in the private sector seem to forget this. I think it's only because the private sector pensions have been hammered in recent years that attention is turning to public sector. Although i would agree the state is too big with alot of non jobs, but now we have got rid of labour hopefully that will change, not that i want anyone to lose their job but that's the way it is.
Some colleagues transferred other pensions to fire pension in order to work less in fb for full pension, only to be told they have to work the full time for full pension. Therefore previous pension amount has been swallowed up and accounts for nothing. Theft if you as me. Dishonestly, appropriating, property, belonging to someone else, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. (Points to prove)
-
I agree with this but i think it's a common misconception that all public sector workers are on some sort of gravy train. I'm a firefighter, (don't agree with strikes and have never been on strike btw, I'm far from being a socialist). Firefighters pay good money into their pension (as do lots of public sector workers), and expect a good pension in return, just like anyone would do from an ISA etc or other financial product from a private firm. The public, especially those working in the private sector seem to forget this. I think it's only because the private sector pensions have been hammered in recent years that attention is turning to public sector. Although i would agree the state is too big with alot of non jobs, but now we have got rid of labour hopefully that will change, not that i want anyone to lose their job but that's the way it is.
Some colleagues transferred other pensions to fire pension in order to work less in fb for full pension, only to be told they have to work the full time for full pension. Therefore previous pension amount has been swallowed up and accounts for nothing. Theft if you as me. Dishonestly, appropriating, property, belonging to someone else, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. (Points to prove)
A gratifyingly sensible post! :y
It is, sadly, human nature to "tar everyone with the same brush" and I understand what you are saying. Of course, there are many public sector workers in the emergency services, the forces, education etc, etc, who deserve pay and conditions comparable to the private sector. Sadly, though, as you have indicated, the public sector has been allowed, indeed encouraged, to become hopelessly bloated with high-paying, non-productive jobs - especially in local government. Read this in its entirety...and weep: ;)
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2010/08/there-is-another-option.html
-
Hmm mine is estimated at £20563 and
The other half gets £165420 if i die in service plus pension .
and i Cant work out why i keep finding knifes under her pillows ;D
-
I pay 4% of my earnings, the company pays 3 times my input (12% my earnings).
As a 28yr old, I'll probably be dead before I am 'ALLOWED' to retire.
-
I won't retire before 67 I think, but depends how the brain holds up
-
I really think that the appropriate word to use here is 'politics.
Firefighters deserve a decent pension (as in theory do all of us) sticking your lives on the line, as with the Forces.
However politicians (starting at local government) always make sure their own nests are well feathered >:(
I receive European bulletins and it is absolutely ludicrous what the 'eurocrats' are doing with our monies to ensure a highly comfortable personal future. >:(
I have to stop there as I wiil 'go off on one' as I took a couple of small pensions out last year and one had actually gone down £3000 from the previous year !!!!!!!
And on top of that, the amount they pay out whether you take the 25% cash or just take a pension income alone is diabolical. You have to live for an incedible time to get back the amount you could have taken as cash >:( And its liable for tax >:(
-
£10,000
Bloody hell that is more than my salary during the yerar, I guess I should move to UK and retire ;D
-
A few points if i may.
The state pension in Britain is the worst in Europe despite (what you might think) that Britain is one of the richest countries in Europe. I wonder why that might be?
It isn't just Eurocrats, back in Britain you are paying for very hefty pensions for politicians, civil servants and the like while all the while the same folk are "marking down what YOU will get on retirement" and increasing the age of your retirement.
people are living longer. Maybe the current generation of OAPs. I cannot see the young of today with their obese, excercise free, binge drinking culture and so on style of life following suit.
I think a lot of people are being very short changed on pensions despite having done "nothing wrong and having worked hard all their lives and paid into the system fully".
-
Heres food for thought
I pay 6% into my pension and my employer 14%, I will come out with a pension less than my wife who works in the public sector and takes home less money.
Public sector pensions need sorting out as they are well above the norm.
-
I wouldn't disagree with you MDTM however how do you do that?
Lets take an example of two brothers.
One works for the local council and when he started 35 years ago he was attracted to the prospect of office work, a decent pension system. In that time he has worked hard and managed a few promotions and is basically happy though sometimes feels life passed him by excitement wise.
The other brother has done a variety of work which has taken him all over the place including foreign countries. He has been out of work at times but put that time to good effect sorting out his collection of vauxhalls bought with various end of year bonuses in the good times. Lately he has realised he hasn't been saving enough for his retirement as his brother has oft pointed out. he does have various money purchase pensions from his various employers but he only contributed the minimum each month.
So how to " sort out the anomoly"
Put all public sector employees on a new contract with a crappy money purchase pension and freeze their final salary scheme entitlement? Who would pay for the salary INCREASE that they would expect to compensate them for reduction in benefits.?
Tax them more highly because they were prudent in making sure they were setting aside money throughout their life?
Give more tax payers money to people in non public sector schemes to compensate them for having a crappy money purchase scheme?
make the financial institutions more responsible by lowering their outrageous charges for managing peoples investments and thus increasing their final payouts. Can't see that happening, we have got to protect our precious banks.
I don't think it is that easy!
-
A few points if i may.
The state pension in Britain is the worst in Europe despite (what you might think) that Britain is one of the richest countries in Europe. I wonder why that might be?
It isn't just Eurocrats, back in Britain you are paying for very hefty pensions for politicians, civil servants and the like while all the while the same folk are "marking down what YOU will get on retirement" and increasing the age of your retirement.
people are living longer. Maybe the current generation of OAPs. I cannot see the young of today with their obese, excercise free, binge drinking culture and so on style of life following suit.
I think a lot of people are being very short changed on pensions despite having done "nothing wrong and having worked hard all their lives and paid into the system fully".
It isn't just Eurocrats, back in Britain you are paying for very hefty pensions for politicians, civil servants and the like while all the while the same folk are "marking down what YOU will get on retirement" and increasing the age of your retirement.
That's a very important point V but one that will never change as government in this country (certainly over the recent past) generally fails to get beyond applying the well tried and trusted method of using the blunt financial instrument of expecting the few to pay for the many to ensure that the 'right' people are attracted into the legislative sector.
This is untenable of course, but the damage has been done, as people inhabiting various levels within the 'local government/public sector machine now expect a decent package before they even consider accepting a position. The notion of true public service has been prostituted for the trick of easy financial reward in many cases.
This is one reason (of the many) why I say this country is broken - and I know Lizzie Zoom might well disagree with me – as there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in the covenant of fairness and propriety between the ruled and those who apply the rules.
There appears to be no efective sanction open to those of us who feel this to be unjust - other than the opportunity to cast a vote every now and again - as the majority of voters seem to remain in their tribal camp of choice when polling day comes.
It seems to me, therefore, that certain elements within this country will continue to exhibit the essential unfairness and downright immorality of those at the top table savouring the tasty morsels while those not so favoured being obliged to get by on whatever is left.
people are living longer //-------------// I cannot see the young of today with their obese, excercise free, binge drinking culture and so on style of life following suit
You're getting to the nub of the problem now V. Thanks to the celebrity obsessed, alcohol fuelled, screen watching, button pushing, live for the moment wasters presently running about, this country faces a very uncertain future considering the ageing population.
-
Who would pay for the salary INCREASE that they would expect to compensate them for reduction in benefits.?
Why? In my (limited) experience it seems public sector pay is already pretty competitive. It might have once been the case that public sector workers had poor salaries and good benefits but I think the salaries have caught up recently.
They also moan on about their "paltry" 3% annual pay rises, etc. and I'm trying to think of someone I know in the private sector who hasn't had a pay cut, let alone a pay freeze over the last few years.
Kevin
-
Who would pay for the salary INCREASE that they would expect to compensate them for reduction in benefits.?
Why? In my (limited) experience it seems public sector pay is already pretty competitive. It might have once been the case that public sector workers had poor salaries and good benefits but I think the salaries have caught up recently.
They also moan on about their "paltry" 3% annual pay rises, etc. and I'm trying to think of someone I know in the private sector who hasn't had a pay cut, let alone a pay freeze over the last few years.
Kevin
I think you are missing my point. Setting aside the conception mis or otherwise , that public sector workers are over rewarded,
If someone is on a package that is £Xk a year plus an attractive final salary scheme, then if that final salary portion of their package is REDUCED then they could reasonably expect an increase in pay to compensate (so they could invest in a crappy money purchase scheme).
-
Public sector pensions do vary and in general, IME, the 'pensioner' only gets back what they pay in.
I read back the thread something along the lines of 2% input by the individual and 14% by the company. Looks OK for the day to day wage packet to me.
I paid 11% of my top line into my final salary pension from day one, week one. The employer paid in zero/nada/zilch/nowt. Not a brass razoo. Now that I am retired, I now get back my own monies in a monthly cheque.
Actually, thats not quite true.
The monies paid in today by those working for my former employers are actually paying me. There is no massive slush fund or pot of cash gaining interest anywhere. Whats deducted on the 10th of the month from theose working is paid out on the 15th to the pensioners....
-
Who would pay for the salary INCREASE that they would expect to compensate them for reduction in benefits.?
Why? In my (limited) experience it seems public sector pay is already pretty competitive. It might have once been the case that public sector workers had poor salaries and good benefits but I think the salaries have caught up recently.
They also moan on about their "paltry" 3% annual pay rises, etc. and I'm trying to think of someone I know in the private sector who hasn't had a pay cut, let alone a pay freeze over the last few years.
Kevin
Six years and no pay rise, just more responsibilities, more travel, more hours etc.
Everything is more expensive now than 6 years ago, so my income has actually reduced considerably :(
-
One can understand resentment in this country on equality.
For example, years ago, I was involved with starting a company with four others. I never put cash in (was not allowed to buy shares) but held senior management position. We started off budgeting for £66.000 per year turnover, and 18 years later, were turning over in excess of £12 million per year, one of the biggest companies in the area, with a large staff, but with same management.
The three that held the shares sold out to a London group, that consisted of 26 companies, but retained their positions within the company. 2 years later, that group went bust, so our company went with it, with over £2 million of orders on the books.
I received redundancy of £3900, (government limit)....whilst at the same time, to enable closure of pits, the miners were coming out with payments of over £30,000 each. >:(
And why do MP's get such excessive handouts when they cease to be elected. >:(
One rule for one etc etc. 18 years down the drain!!!!!!!!!!
-
Public pensions are guaranteed.
Mine is based on number of years divide by 60 multiplied by 0.6 times your average salary over the last 5 years less your state pension.
Hence its the. Fctors are what kill it.
The public schemes have better calcs.....simples
-
Public sector pensions do vary and in general, IME, the 'pensioner' only gets back what they pay in.
I read back the thread something along the lines of 2% input by the individual and 14% by the company. Looks OK for the day to day wage packet to me.
I paid 11% of my top line into my final salary pension from day one, week one. The employer paid in zero/nada/zilch/nowt. Not a brass razoo. Now that I am retired, I now get back my own monies in a monthly cheque.
Actually, thats not quite true.
The monies paid in today by those working for my former employers are actually paying me. There is no massive slush fund or pot of cash gaining interest anywhere. Whats deducted on the 10th of the month from theose working is paid out on the 15th to the pensioners....
Never heard of such ascheme, its normally around 5% input by employee which is matched by the employer. Never heard of any scheme where the employer puts in more than the employee (outside of directors/senior management etc.) :-/
-
Who would pay for the salary INCREASE that they would expect to compensate them for reduction in benefits.?
Why? In my (limited) experience it seems public sector pay is already pretty competitive. It might have once been the case that public sector workers had poor salaries and good benefits but I think the salaries have caught up recently.
They also moan on about their "paltry" 3% annual pay rises, etc. and I'm trying to think of someone I know in the private sector who hasn't had a pay cut, let alone a pay freeze over the last few years.
Kevin
I think you are missing my point. Setting aside the conception mis or otherwise , that public sector workers are over rewarded,
If someone is on a package that is £Xk a year plus an attractive final salary scheme, then if that final salary portion of ED then their package is REDUCED they could reasonably expect an increase in pay to compensate (so they could invest in a crappy money purchase scheme).
Why ????.....not a reasonable expectation at all imo. Its based on the assumption that once you have something (a salary level, a standard of living etc.) it can never be taken away. The real world of financial ups and downs (used to be known as boom and bust until the great economist Brown abolished it) cant affect employees? If companies all had to work in that fashion there wouldnt be many of them survive a downturn or drop of in orders.
And in the private sector "crappy money purchase schemes" are pretty much the only option available. We had a private pension industry which was the envy of the world 20 years ago, until Brown taxed it into oblivion and all but destroyed it. >:(
Personally I believe the public sector should be forced to live in the real world with the rest of us and should have their pensions provided on the same basis as the rest of us. They should put approx 5% of their salary into a money purchase scheme which would be matched by the taxpayer, and no rise in salary to compensate for the change.
I paid into a final salary scheme for years.One day I recieved a letter from my employer informing me that the scheme was being closed with immediate effect, but I would be given info and assistance on choosing a personal pension plan. Thats the real world. No-one has the right to expect the country to provide them with a certain amount of money come what may imo.
-
I won't retire before 67 I think, but depends how the brain holds up
:-X :-X :-X ::) :D ;D ;D ;D
-
Who would pay for the salary INCREASE that they would expect to compensate them for reduction in benefits.?
Why? In my (limited) experience it seems public sector pay is already pretty competitive. It might have once been the case that public sector workers had poor salaries and good benefits but I think the salaries have caught up recently.
They also moan on about their "paltry" 3% annual pay rises, etc. and I'm trying to think of someone I know in the private sector who hasn't had a pay cut, let alone a pay freeze over the last few years.
Kevin
I think you are missing my point. Setting aside the conception mis or otherwise , that public sector workers are over rewarded,
If someone is on a package that is £Xk a year plus an attractive final salary scheme, then if that final salary portion of ED then their package is REDUCED they could reasonably expect an increase in pay to compensate (so they could invest in a crappy money purchase scheme).
Why ????.....not a reasonable expectation at all imo. Its based on the assumption that once you have something (a salary level, a standard of living etc.) it can never be taken away. The real world of financial ups and downs (used to be known as boom and bust until the great economist Brown abolished it) cant affect employees? If companies all had to work in that fashion there wouldnt be many of them survive a downturn or drop of in orders.
And in the private sector "crappy money purchase schemes" are pretty much the only option available. We had a private pension industry which was the envy of the world 20 years ago, until Brown taxed it into oblivion and all but destroyed it. >:(
In addition to the government taxing pensions (The Condems haven't abolished it so they are as bad), You forgot as well that the financial sectors charges for administering the crappy money purchase schemes also ate into them. Plus the performance was often no better than if a chimp had picked the investments! Bloodsuckers.
-
Public sector pensions do vary and in general, IME, the 'pensioner' only gets back what they pay in.
I read back the thread something along the lines of 2% input by the individual and 14% by the company. Looks OK for the day to day wage packet to me.
I paid 11% of my top line into my final salary pension from day one, week one. The employer paid in zero/nada/zilch/nowt. Not a brass razoo. Now that I am retired, I now get back my own monies in a monthly cheque.
Actually, thats not quite true.
The monies paid in today by those working for my former employers are actually paying me. There is no massive slush fund or pot of cash gaining interest anywhere. Whats deducted on the 10th of the month from theose working is paid out on the 15th to the pensioners....
Never heard of such ascheme, its normally around 5% input by employee which is matched by the employer. Never heard of any scheme where the employer puts in more than the employee (outside of directors/senior management etc.) :-/
I remembered marks quote wrong.
.... I pay 6% into my pension and my employer 14%,....
Still a fair percentage input though....
-
Im no fan of the Condems but they cant abolish it at present due to the fact that the previous lot left the country beyond bankrupt.
As for the returns on various schemes - depends which funds you choose to invest with, and how much time and effort you want to put into it. its reasonably possible to get very good returns indeed, even at the present time, but it needs a lot of legwork so to speak. I would recommend having a look at Hargreaves Landsdown funds as a good starting point. ;)
-
Public sector pensions do vary and in general, IME, the 'pensioner' only gets back what they pay in.
I read back the thread something along the lines of 2% input by the individual and 14% by the company. Looks OK for the day to day wage packet to me.
I paid 11% of my top line into my final salary pension from day one, week one. The employer paid in zero/nada/zilch/nowt. Not a brass razoo. Now that I am retired, I now get back my own monies in a monthly cheque.
Actually, thats not quite true.
The monies paid in today by those working for my former employers are actually paying me. There is no massive slush fund or pot of cash gaining interest anywhere. Whats deducted on the 10th of the month from theose working is paid out on the 15th to the pensioners....
Never heard of such ascheme, its normally around 5% input by employee which is matched by the employer. Never heard of any scheme where the employer puts in more than the employee (outside of directors/senior management etc.) :-/
I remembered marks quote wrong.
.... I pay 6% into my pension and my employer 14%,....
Still a fair percentage input though....
Agreed. :y......very unusual in my experience, unless Mark is a senior manager or director ? :-/
-
Im no fan of the Condems but they cant abolish it at present due to the fact that the previous lot left the country beyond bankrupt.
As for the returns on various schemes - depends which funds you choose to invest with, and how much time and effort you want to put into it. its reasonably possible to get very good returns indeed, even at the present time, but it needs a lot of legwork so to speak. I would recommend having a look at Hargreaves Landsdown funds as a good starting point. ;)
smoke and mirrors
IF this or any other government thought it important enough they could abolish it and save money elsewhere. e.g. weapons spend. The plain fact is they don't care. if they did the state pension would be a satisfactory level and not the WORST in Europe. Not much cause for national pride there is there.?
The point about private pension funds is that most people who are saving money in a pension are too busy working to spend their time checking fund performances or how much is being deducted in "management fees, account management, half yearly fees, etc etc". If they were that savvy then they would be fund managers and not whatever other job they are doing.
Thanks for the tip though. I've sold pork bellies and invested in Hargreaves lansdownes. ;D ;D ;D
-
Public sector pensions do vary and in general, IME, the 'pensioner' only gets back what they pay in.
I read back the thread something along the lines of 2% input by the individual and 14% by the company. Looks OK for the day to day wage packet to me.
I paid 11% of my top line into my final salary pension from day one, week one. The employer paid in zero/nada/zilch/nowt. Not a brass razoo. Now that I am retired, I now get back my own monies in a monthly cheque.
Actually, thats not quite true.
The monies paid in today by those working for my former employers are actually paying me. There is no massive slush fund or pot of cash gaining interest anywhere. Whats deducted on the 10th of the month from theose working is paid out on the 15th to the pensioners....
Never heard of such ascheme, its normally around 5% input by employee which is matched by the employer. Never heard of any scheme where the employer puts in more than the employee (outside of directors/senior management etc.) :-/
I remembered marks quote wrong.
.... I pay 6% into my pension and my employer 14%,....
Still a fair percentage input though....
Mark's employer is having to pay in extra cash to plug the huge deficit caused by Lord Weinstocks sticky fingers.