They always love printing these stories.

Most cops, firefighters, teachers, whatever, don't get gold plated pensions. They may, if they are lucky and have served the full shift, get pension to live on.

What will happen if ''they'' decide to slash public sector pensions, is that people who currently finance themselves, will move onto pension credit benefits.

I don't really see the point in that.

What we should be doing is ensuring that at the same time as there is a minimum pension guarantee there should also be a maximum. We shouldn't have millionaire pensioners.

So - as you get a minimum ceiling that you can't fall below, so there should be a maximum ceiling that state funded pensioners should not be allowed to break through.

Of course, there is an obvious solution to Public Sector pensions.

Public service workers should be mandated to take shares in PFI/PPP projects, for a maximumum of 5yrs.

By that time they will have accumulated, through their contributions, the maximum pot - £1.65m.

Alternatively, they could be enrolled in the "bankers'" scheme.............or even the Westminster plan.

Public service pensions are not a gift; they are a right.

Instead of getting angry about these schemes, workers should be demanding that everyone should have a living pension.

'Richard Baker, for Labour, said Mr MacAskill was wrong to blame Westminster. He said policing was devolved to Scotland and was covered in the block grant paid to the Scottish Government by Westminster'
Dick Baker must think we are stupid!
Fact of the matter is this ; IF The UK Government INCREASES something like Police pensions in England, then the block grant has to be increased to cover the equivelant amount for Police Pensions in Scotland. Its a disgrace that Labour are refusing to to this and forcing the Scottish Government to dip into the existing Block Grant
Labour us the same arguement when they are making cuts to the block grant, based on them making cuts in England
Labour are just a bunch of crooks!

#1 I DON'T WANT TO USE MY REAL NAME

More drivel form you.

What planet are you living on?

They do get gold-plated pensions and they retire before the rest of us.

For Scots in the private sector to retire on a similar income they would have to have set aside hundreds of thousands of pounds.

I SUSPECT YOU'RE ONE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR SPONGERS.

Nothing is ever just a deficit or a shortfall these days. It's always a "black hole" now.

I know two cops who have both recently "retired" on a full final salary pension at the grand old ages of 47 and 51 respectively. Yes I am aware that the "30 year" rule has recently changed to a "40 year" rule, but perhaps some of you public sector cheerleaders could explain why it is that everyone else has to fund quite the most generous pension arrangements, outside MPs and MSPs on offer in these dire financial times? And please, no recourse to the warped logic of "they bailed out the bankers".
There seems to be some sort of arithmetical deficiency amongst those busily supporting quite unaffordable public sector pension provision. There are massive deficits, those contributing to the pensions do not contribute nearly enough to support the sums that are provided on retirement (if you doubt that, go ask an IFA what it might cost to retire on 2/3rds final salary, with a generous lump sum after 30/40 years of service, then count the zeros!) and that old myth that "it compensates for lower salaries in the public sector" has been well and truly exploded.
We need a wider debate about how retirement is to be funded - largely given that the pension industry is one huge busted flush - but the debate is not in any way assisted by one group of workers simply filling their boots on schemes running massive deficits, with an absurd Government in the wings telling everyone such pensions are "fully costed and affordable". If this denial continues, one day the pension cheque will not arrive because, regrettably, the money has ran oot.

Edward Dick Baker is a wee naff trying very hard to make a name for himself. He is succeeding in making himself look a complete and utter tool with every passing day.

Edward

Dick Baker is a wee naff trying very hard to make a name for himself. He is succeeding in making himself look a complete and utter tool with every passing day.

It an expenses type situation,if the public services were great people wouldn't object so much,but they are absoluetely rubbish,with the exception of firemen the public services are overstaffed and underworked and nobody should be able to retire with a public financed pension before sixty-eight.

This pension back payment is only what the Home Office robbed from retired officers. The Government Actuary Dept instructed the H.O. that increased pension payments were lawful and due in Dec. 2006. The H.O. ignored the instruction and the Police Federation had to take the H.O. to court. They did and they won. After nearly three years, a wrong is being righted. Police officers pay 11% of their gross earning for 30 years for a pension – it is not given to them for free. It is commonly known that the above increase by GAD in Oct 2006 is cost neutral to the Exchequer. What is the problem?

10 You seem to be unaware that most public sector workers don't have 2/3 final salary scheme with lump sum as well.

That's rubbish.

So if you can't get basic facts right thenm why should we pay any attention to the rest of your grievance filled post.

#JayJay
The 47 yr.old cop you mention cannot have retired on full pension as the Police have never accepted 17 yrs olds to the regular force.
However, the reason retired Police Officers like me enjoy reasonable pensions is because,until recently, they paid 11.2% of gross salary towards their pension.
I know this no longer covers the full cost of Police pensions but it was the deal we were offered when we joined and it was compulsory to join the pension scheme.
I don't believe any other occupation pays such a high amount of salary towards their pension.
In common with other Public Service schemes, the government refused to invest the pension contributions but used them to pay the pensions of those already retired. Thus, no fund was built up.
None of this is the fault of the Police who are only receiving what they were promised when originally recruited.
Furthermore, many of the good conditions enjoyed by the Police is because they eschewed the right to go on strike after the Liverpool Police Strike of 1919 when the military took 4 days to restore order and the Royal Navy had to send 3 warships to the River Mersey.
It is also worthy of mention that, in times of high employment, the Police (like the military)have difficulty recruiting and retaining staff. The Police Pension Scheme was one of the carrots dangled to attract people to leave other (often better paid)jobs.
The Police and other Public sector workers did not bring about the current financial ills we now experience and I do not see why they should suffer as a result of the profligate spending of others.

Saw this yesterday
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3690868/the-promise-of-a-lifetime.thtml
and it does not make me any more sympathetic to the public sector. Some folk just have to stop contributing to their pensions in order to pay their employees wages and/or just survive. Meanwhile we are taxed to the hilt to pay for red tape and retired red tapeees.

#10, Jay-Jay.

Do the figures!!!

Any Public Service worker paying 11.2% of their gross wage for 40 years is fully funding his/her pension & lump sum.

E.G.

Teacher: average annual salary, £30 000.

£30 000 x 11.2% x 40 x 3%/annum (notional growth) = £350 000 approx.

lump sum @ £40 000, final salary = £60 000.

Residual ammount, £290 000.

Anuity @ 65 29 x £700 = £20 300.

The fact that successive Governments have used PS contributions to pay current pensions is not the fault of the workers. Thatcher, in fact, in the 80s stole £400m from the English Teachers pensions and £40m from the Scottish teachers, simply because there was a surplus.

The reality is that PS workers pay for their pension. They do not receive special handouts.

And, please to do not refer to IFAs or Pensions Companies with respect to "value" before assessing their costs and practices.

There must be a cupboard somewhere full of Richard Baker's !.He seems ubiquitous on local Aberdeen radio, press and media in general and his only remit seems to be to say black when SNP says white and vice versa.

#18 Frank

You maths sucks

£30 000 x 11.2% x 40 x 3%/annum (notional growth) = £350 000 approx.

WRONG. Actually nearer £253K

I hope you will revist your maths and unfounded opinion.

There is a massive public sector pension black hole.

If you really thought they paid for themselves you wouldnt disagree that they should all be converted into money purchase schemes?

Do the maths.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in relation to public sector pensions. Note that we taxpayers have already provided significant top ups for police and fire brigade retirees. Neither of the pension schemes for these public sector employees is a funded one - payments are made from current budgets plus contributions from the employees themselves. However even the funded pension schemes for local authorities (including teachers) are adequately funded and have had to be topped up by council tax payers. Then we have the NHS and armed forces pension schemes which are non funded (i.e. there is no pension fund as such and paymets to pensioners is from current taxes).
When you look at the full picture it's very scary - for current taxpayers - the sheer size of the public sector makes final salary pensions impossible to fund from a reducing tax take.
I should hasten to add that this problem is not the making of the individuals themselves but more that of successive governments and politicians who have failed spectacularly to address this issue. When the government (a couple of years ago) raised the need to increase the retirment age for some public sector workers to 65 (like the rest of us), the government gave in to public sector union pressure and continued to busy their heads in the sand.
This whole issue is so unfair and divisive when final salary pensions have all but disappeared in the private sector and many many people face the prospect of an impoverished retirement or having to work well beyond 65.

You can all argue over the arithmetic till you're blue in the face, I've never fully understood the ins and outs. What I am 100% certain of is that I contribute a larger slice of my pay than most ( 11%+) and thats the contract my employers and I signed up to when i joined.The trade off for the crappy shifts and the less enjoyable elements of the job ( its is enjoyable for the most part) is a reasonable pension and the opportunity to retire early enough to make the most of it. So when it comes time to collect, I will have a clear conscience and you'll have to prise the money out of my cold dead hand.
Have a nice day!

We in the "bloated public sector" also pay taxes.

If public sector pensions are so wonderful why are public sector jobs not the most sought after jobs in the United Kingdom?

gerry and David - Public sector workers do not contribute a single penny. Their pay is what they take home in their hand. That and everything else is funded by the the real taxpayer. The rest of us of us have to go out and generate income to pay our taxes.

As for wanting to have a public sector job, some of us have moral scrupples.

24 You really are an idiot. Do you genuinely think that teachers, nurses, doctors, police officers, firefighters, care assistants, home helps, etc etc are not necessary ? Money is bits of paper, it doesn't necessarily reflect a persons productivity in terms of their contribution to communities to enable them to function.

And I know the tax payers alliance and the looney right don't like people pointing this out - but compared to the amount the country has had to fork out to bail out the Masters of the Universe in the private sector you've got a godamned cheek having a pop at us.

#
yockel,in case you are actually serious and not just stirring for the sake of it.....' WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON'...of course public sector workers pay tax, national insurance and everything else and to state otherwise is just nonsense. If I don't want a pariticular item from a shop..I won't buy it. Likewise any optional services out there such as buses, entertainment etc .. I can chose not to purchase them. However in a civilised society, certain things such as street sweeping, waste disposal, basic health care and education and ...yes policing.. are essential to avoid breakdown of the system.( think its called anarchy)

If you do not wish to live within that system with all the benefits it provides... then opt out... see ya!!!

lets see where your moral scruples are when you are getting a kicking or your house is being broken into and no one wants to help you.

#20, Doh.

One year's pension contribution = £3 336

At a notional CI rate of 3%/annum for 40yrs = £9180

Therefore pension pot after 40yrs = £366 960

Doh, I expected more of you.

And, can I ask you why you are happy to see workers' pensions reduced to the lowest standard, rather than raised to the highest.

Again, I say, Public Sector workers pay for their pensions and, as such, should not be disadvantaged by the incompetence of others.
This, I also contend, should be the case with those in the private sector.

Why is is Police pensions are almost always the ones mentioned in the debate over Public Sector Pensions?
There are only about 150,000 retired Police Officers in the UK so the numbers are dwarfed by pensioners from
other branches of the Public sector such as the NHS and Local Government whose total number of pensioners number about 3 million between them. The Civil Service and teachers have have about 600,000 pensioners each and HM Forces 200,000.
Those in the Private Sector seem to believe Public sector workers are unimportant compared to them. They would do well to remember,particularly in he World we now live in, that the Private Sector could not carry on its normal daily business were it not for Public sectior workers such as the Police and HM Forces. Anarchy would reign and I suspect there are few governments who would treat these workers with disdain andnrisk losing their loyalty in these times.

#28 Frank

Your mathcs is wrong.
I think themistake you are making is giving each year's conrtibution 40 years worth of interest.

Of ocourse only the first year gets 40 years, the last year only 1 year of interest.

As I say your maths sucks.

So your example only has a pension pot of £253K not £336K.

I am not in favour of reducing anyone's pension, but I dont think private sector workers should see their pensions reduced to pay for underfunded public sector pensions. You do.

BTW I wasnt sure that you answered my question - do you agree that all public sector pensions should be converted to money purchase?
Presumbly you do since you are sure they already pay their way.

Trust me, re-do your maths then consider the scale of the problem - and tell me why a shopworker on £10K should be subsidising a civil servant on say £10K year.
They will both recieve very different pensions.