Pensions

[Sue Durnim]

If men live shorter lives on average by four years then women, then why do men retire later and women earlier, should it not be the other way round, so men can enjoy retirement for a few more years longer and spend their hard earned pension relaxing and enjoying what life they have left?

 

The other alternative is that men and women retire at the same age, after all, it is supposed to be a non-discriminating democracy we live in?

[Peter T]

Retirement is the beginning of the end.

[observer]

You've noticed Sue; that equal rights are not so equal!

[Sue Durnim]

With the real threat of many thousands of redundancies within the public sector, who will be left to replenish the pension pot for the people who are retired or to retire in the future, will the pension fund be quickly wind down to zero, giving nothing to no one or will pensions be worth having anyway, maybe it would beneficial to opt out of a pension scheme and buy weekly lotto tickets instead or invest on a race horse at a local betting shop?

 

Is it feasible that people who are retired at present, be forced to except a reduced pension as funding is getting low, or is it guaranteed by the government no matter what happens in an economic crises, or is it against the law to alter or interfere with pension agreements or payments once you have retired?

[Lt Kije]

Is it feasible that people who are retired at present, be forced to except a reduced pension as funding is getting low

 

Not a bad idea, Don't think Obs will go for it though, He has become accustomed to the pension my taxes give him

[Bazj]

My mum gets a small pension from Unilever which is part of my dads fund when he retired. After he died she got a reduced amount from his contributions.

 

When dad first died she was getting almost double what she gets now as the pension is variable depending on how well various funds do.

 

There is no precident Sgt. funds go up or down and so no reason that a pension can't do the same.

[Peter T]

Except when Gordon Brown steals the bulk of it.

[observer]

Think your last sentence covers it SD?!

[asperity]

There isn't, and there never has been, a "pension pot" for the public sector. Public sector pensions are paid directly from general taxation with never any pretence of setting up a fund to finance them.

[observer]

Yes Asp, it's swilling around current LA budgets, which were topped up by contributions from workers when these schemes were first devised: then they were pulling in more than they were paying out, now with more folk retired under these schemes, the reverse is true - agreements often work that way!

[Sue Durnim]

Could it be conceivable that because of the so called ?Pension Pot? ever decreasing and less people paying into it and the value of shares going down etc, that people who are already retired will have to except a lesser pension each month, so to accommodate people who are going to hopefully retire in the future if that is possible?

[wolfie]

except

[observer]

Sue, new starters will have to start on less generous conditions whilst making increased contributions, meanwhile the Grim Reaper will gradually reduce existing liabilities!

[Sue Durnim]

Observer, no doubt the grim reaper will come to us all, guaranteed, people are living a lot longer these days, people who have been lucky to have retired at 55 can expect to live to over 85+ and will take out more than they have put in. The only answer does seem to work for longer, retire for several years then hold hands with the grim reaper.

[observer]

For State Pensions, they are already going to increase retirement age, only some folk are living longer - those posted to Afghanistan, or who drink and drive, smoke, eat junk food or have a genetic condition arn't - so if the Gov cancel all these Nanny propoganda schemes, the death rate should increase, with folk dying in harness, thus NOT claiming their pensions - sorted.

[Eagle]

except

 

You decide Wolfie, is it accept or expect?

[wolfie]

I expect it's accept, except when it isn't

[Eagle]

I can accept that.

[asperity]

Yes Asp, it's swilling around current LA budgets, which were topped up by contributions from workers when these schemes were first devised: then they were pulling in more than they were paying out, now with more folk retired under these schemes, the reverse is true - agreements often work that way!

 

* Police (unfunded)

* Firefighters (unfunded)

* Armed forces (unfunded)

* NHS (unfunded)

* Teachers (unfunded)

* Civil Service / Agencies (unfunded)

* Local councils (funded)

 

Say no more

[Lt Kije]

For an average person to get the same benefits a police man gets they would have to pay between 60% and 70% of their income into a private pension. Might be wrong but I think the police pay 11%

[observer]

and the fire pay 13% ( so not exactly "unfunded" Asp!); the private sector has enjoyed higher wages for eons. but now the bubbles burst and they've hit a bad patch. envious eyes are now turning to the traditionally lower paid, but sensibly provisioned public sector - such is the nature of folk. And lest we forget, it was the private sector IE BANKS, that got us into this mess in the first place.

[wolfie]

Teachers pay 10%

[asperity]

It's "unfunded" because the 13% is a pay reduction not a payment into a pension fund in any meaning of the term.

[observer]

It's pay your entitled to receive, BUT whether you want to or not, is deducted towards a pension scheme; it's only as you get older that your thankfull you paid the money in whilst you were young. And as I said, when these schemes were first introduced, they benefited the employer, but now they're paying more out, they want to renage on these agreements - such is the nature of folk!

[wolfie]

Teachers pay 10%

 

Into a pension fund.