Dracoro

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4854818.stm

Let's not discuss the issues of pensions themselves (there's no argument about working later, we live longer, need more workers etc. make another thread if you do tho) but I'm more concerned about the unions really digging their heels in and creating a mess of the country.

brumdaisy

hmmm funny how all us public sector so called layabouts, waste of space, paper pushing, do bugger all people manage to cause such chaos just cos some of us (not ALL by a long chalk) stop work for one day.

Dont worry the country will not grind to a stop; mainly because there are far fewer people in unions these days..... they are not the force that they were 30 years ago...

Ninnybobs

Why do all these articles mention retirement on Full Pensions.

You only get Full Pensions if you have served 40+ years.

After 40 years, I think you about ready for retirement

Martin

r32

I think its the 85 rule, if your age and the length of time in the pension scheme add up to 85 you can go on full pension. There might be a few other rules, like minimum time in the scheme but not sure, bet some one else knows?

Lust4Life

Sorry, did something happen yesterday then?

Phil

brumdaisy

apparently so, dont know about all these tunnels being closed but the M6 was a breeze

OllyK

Yup, roads were nice and clear and the journey in to work was a dead easy, long may the strikes continue. Just need to pen a letter to my local council now asking for a Council Tax rebate for the loss of a day's service!

Dieseldog

Does anyone know exactly what's happened to life expectancy? Everyone runs around saying "We're living longer! We're living longer!" but I haven't seen any figures. When I look at the increased contributions people are being asked to make, and the longer people are being asked to work I wonder how much can be attributed to longevity. I wouldn't be surprise if it was a tiny element, yet it's portrayed as the main culprit.

The unions are there to support workers, and maybe they act if they believe their members are being cheated. What's the problem with that? Maybe this is the last straw - they've kept quiet for 9 years of labour Government ("Shh, don't rock the boat, we can't let the Tories back in"). Maybe it's a final realisation that Labour doesn't support the common man, but the common politician instead?

OllyK

The ONS is always a good place to look:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nug...ank=1&Rank=374

fast bloke

I looked this up yesterday - found figures on the WHO site. Can't find them this morning, but in 1976 average life expectancy in the UK was 68. That has increased to 77. So you now need enough to pay a pension for 17 years instead of 8. with indexation on the payout, you would need a fund three times the size on retirement date. If you used to contribute for 40 years to get 8 years on 40/60 salary, you would now need to contribute for something near 100 years (allowing for fund growth) - Raising the pension age to 67 would negate the problem, as more people would be paying in for 7 extra years while less people would be recieving benefit.

Fair enough - some people joined for the job security and pension, but the inability to see that the contracts they signed up to are not sustainable is going to lead them into the same sort of crap situation that people with Equitable Life pensions landed themselves in by insitsing the Equitable Life honour guaranteed annuity rates set in the 1950's. The policyholders could have taken a slightly lesser pension, but they insisted that they get the full guaranteed amount and took it to the house of lords. The decision caused the company to have to close its doors to new business, thus ensuring the policyholders will get substantially less than they would have if they had agreed to thre reduced amount in the 1990's

julian N/W wrx my93

People nowadays wouldn't know whats hit them if there was a proper strike.

i was ten years old in the miners strike and did with out for over a year!

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

It's much simpler: these pensions pay in eightieths. That is, for every year you work for the government you get one eightieth of your final salary as pension (it might actually be the best year out of your last three). So if and ONLY if you work forty years will you get the maximum 50% pension.

All those people who take early retirement trade it against a cut in pension.


M

Dracoro

All depends on how much you put in. You can put in loads and get a 100% pension if you really like. However, I appreciate for the typical person putting in a typical amount they'll get less. I think 50% is optimistic for many people though.

Anyway, we're drifting away from the topic. Will there be mass strikes and bin bags not collected, schools shut down for weeks on end etc.?

GaryK

Pulic sector * is* a joke, if you worked for a private enterprise where you didnt automatically receive funding and had to be accountable for every pound you spent I would give most public sector organisations about three months tops before they crumbled with huge debts. Im currently working a for a large public sector company and the difference between deliverables in that and your typical SME is a just unbelievable.

You're right it wont even though they are front line troops, lets face it most public sector middle/senior management could strike for a month and no one would notice.