The Strikes

[Witton Park]

So we are faced with strikes this week from parts of the public sector, which largely stem from their perceived erosion of their pensions rights.

Without going in to the details, there's some principles that seem to have been overlooked to me. Those principles are the basis of what our welfare state is built upon and the pension part of that.

From birth to the end of education / start of work - Receive from the system.

From the start of work - retirement - pay in to the system.

From retirement - death - receive from the system.

Typically when this system was set up the average person would be working by 16 and retiring at 60/65 with death by 75.

Now, 50% are in higher education and with gap years etc I bet the average for starting work is 20, and the death is over 80, so for the current 20 year olds could be towards 90.

The simple maths, ignoring all other factors which complicate this show us that we have gone from paying in for 45-50 and receiving for 25-30 to a 40-45/40-45 ie more of an even split.

So we on the whole have to pay more in - simple maths.

I am staggered in the way that these issues always seem to become embroiled in politics though. Why can we not get a simple solution that fits both public and private sector and stop all this them and us nonsense?

eg.
From Jan 1st 2015 all current pension schemes will be frozen.
From Jan 1st 2015 everyone will have a "Pension ISA"
all will pay 3% of income in to that ISA.
all employers will pay 3% of income in to that ISA.
employers and employees will have the ability to add up to a further 2% max per annum in to that ISA as voluntary top ups.

Pension ISA cannot be drawn from until 65 years of age.
Pension ISA to be risk free savings - interest to be tax free.
Draw down limits should be set up to ensure it cannot be used prematurely.
Surplus left in pot at death can be left in will to transfer to beneficiaries pots.

NB. The % rates etc used are for illustration only.

A system such as this should be fair for all. It can be adapted for self employed, unemployed and welfare dependent to ensure that all have their own personal savings plan come retirement.
An important part is the surplus - the passing on of this will re-enforce the funds for the future generations.

[Derby Tup]

What do we need to discuss before we move on to the prevalence of EPO in modern sport or vastly over-priced running kit?

The fact you 'staggered in the way that these issues always seem to become embroiled in politics'?

Your suggested solution? (bearing in the % rates etc used are for illustration only)

How we are affected by the proposed changes to our pensions (public sector folk likely to be involved in the strikes)

How pissed off we are that we will be affected by the strikes? (none-strikers or strikers who don't want to strike)

[Stagger]

I support the strikers.

[Stolly]

The public sector pension benefits cost far far far more than say 6% of annual salary. They are probably nearer 25 to 30%.

[dominion]

I'm convinced that I'm the only person that understands how to fix this. Everyone in the civil service today keeps their benefits. Everyone who starts a new job tomorrow gets a different benefits package - reduced pension, higher contributions. So we'd be stuck for a few years until everyone on the old scheme is dead, but then we'll be fine.

It's how the private sector has existed for many years.

As to whether fell shoes should be part of an employee benefits package I think is still up for debate.

[(notsomuchofa)Fellrunner]

I read no further through the original post after reading the word "perceived".

[Don't fear the sweeper]

I support the strikers, particularly the teachers. It's a hard enough job anyway, without having to do it till you're 67. The teachers' pension scheme is able to cope with the expected demand on it, so the government should keep their hands off it and leave it as it is.

[Danbert Nocurry]

I read no further through the original post after reading the word "perceived".

Spot on Fellrunner

I'll be striking as I think backtracking on previously promised agreements is an utter disgrace. I can understand if a reduced pension is offered to new employees but to ammend everyone elses (obviously bar MP's) is disgusting.

I do think the strike is a bad idea as it'll show how unpassionate the majority of people are in protecting their own rights and give the goverment encouragement to take the piss even more.

[Dynamo Dan]

Spot on Fellrunner

I'll be striking as I think backtracking on previously promised agreements is an utter disgrace. I can understand if a reduced pension is offered to new employees but to ammend everyone elses (obviously bar MP's) is disgusting.

I do think the strike is a bad idea as it'll show how unpassionate the majority of people are in protecting their own rights and give the goverment encouragement to take the piss even more.

It's funny how the MPs aren't taking the same deal isn't it? But then again "we're all in it together" aren't we.....

[Mike T]

The money for reasonable pensions and acceptable retirement ages for all is out there, it's just not shared out equitably. No employer is worth 100 or more of his employees in terms of salaries, and yet that is what we have in many institutions. The banks bosses are a disgrace - they went bust, were bailed out by the taxpayers, and still award themselves huge bonuses. Having said that I do not think a general strike will help - how does closing a school hurt the bankers or the politicians? Action needs to be more focused.