The UK Pension Crisis ( a two tier socieity)

[English assassin]

Umm, yes, even I would not have gone so far as to say that all of the country's teachers or medics produce nothing, but to be fair to CR he may have forgotten that they are all public sector employees in the UK.

(That last comment is not intended to be sarcasm)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, yes indeed I did not know.

Teachers and Doctors are definately good (though national health care doesn't sound like all its cracked up to be).

I was talking about those in government positions. Like mayors, and their leagues of underlings. Actually, in the US, in a city of ~80k people, an assistant-as in not the main one, but someone who just helps-pulls down $100,000 a year. Here, our gov't. employees get paid well, have great benefits, but I think we ahve less relatively.

Crazed Rabbit

[Duke of Gloucester]

I've been a local councillor since 1998 and a fair proportion of our council tax rises have been to make sure we keep the local government scheme funded. Tax rises that are being paid by people whose own pensions may be non-existant.

Yes, but I presume they do benefit from the services provided by local government employees concerned. If not, you would be quite justified in cutting back on the number of employees.

Your argument about the security of governments against the insecurity of private business are valid, and what you say about the demographic time bomb is irrefutable. This is why, eventually, even public sector workers in work now,will have to agree to work past 60.

The Times and Shades idea that somehow public sector workers now earn as much as those in the private sector are just nonsense, I am afraid. The only one of my college friends who earns less than me is someone who does not work at all. Many have sallaries double mine. In my area, I am very senior and earn more than most, but it still doesn't match what I could earn elsewhere. Please note, I am not complaining. I earn enough to support my family and have a reasonably comfortable life. If this was not true I could move to another area. Three things I would complain about are:

• the idea that I am well paid compared to those with similar qualifications.
• That I don't "produce" anything
• That it would be equitable to change my conditions of employment unilaterally without any quid pro quo.

[ShadesWolf]

You are all missing the point. We are talking about pension.

We are talking about private sector people having to work until they are at least sixty five and maybe seventy whereas public sector retire a sixty with pension that we all have contributed too.

A fairer outcome would be all retire at sixty and the government also covers company pensions or no pensions at all. All workers have a choice, they dont have to work in the public sector if the pay is bad. But the longterm benifits well outway any wage shortcomings.

[Ja'chyra]

You are all missing the point. We are talking about pension.

We are talking about private sector people having to work until they are at least sixty five and maybe seventy whereas public sector retire a sixty with pension that we all have contributed too.

A fairer outcome would be all retire at sixty and the government also covers company pensions or no pensions at all. All workers have a choice, they dont have to work in the public sector if the pay is bad. But the longterm benifits well outway any wage shortcomings.

No, you're missing the point.

A good pension has always been the way for the government to offset the poor wages that civil servants receive, saying that the government should also cover pension for the private sector is just wrong, the employer should as the government will have to for their workers.

You're right that all workers do have a choice and many choose to become civil servants simply because they weigh the pension and the pay and decide it's good enough for them.

And you're arguments about the unions running the government is totally wrong, the government rarely listens to the unions IMHO, just look at the pay deals.

[Papewaio]

My British Grandfather worked until he was 72... and he only stopped working because the company found out that he was over 65 after they asked him how old he was. By that point he was working as a gardener.

My NZ Grandfather ran a business until he had a stroke in his eighties. He was sking on whistler in his seventies, broke a leg, but because he was so active he recovered quite well. He was a hard drinker, but what kept him alive so long was keeping his mind and body active.

I think for your own health you should stay active as long as possible.

If you can work longer you will help yourself, help the community and have a bigger retirement fund.

[yesdachi]

My British Grandfather worked until he was 72... and he only stopped working because the company found out that he was over 65 after they asked him how old he was. By that point he was working as a gardener.

My NZ Grandfather ran a business until he had a stroke in his eighties. He was sking on whistler in his seventies, broke a leg, but because he was so active he recovered quite well. He was a hard drinker, but what kept him alive so long was keeping his mind and body active.

I think for your own health you should stay active as long as possible.

If you can work longer you will help yourself, help the community and have a bigger retirement fund.

Great examples of longevity but what is the point of having a large retirement fund if you are to old to enjoy it or dead?

Not much point in having a big retirement fund and poor health either that is why staying active is a great recommendation but IMO working longer is not. I am all for working until you can retire and then becoming a more active spouse, parent, grandparent or citizen in general. If money allows (unless you have some dream job) I cant imagine how spending 40 hours a week at work is more valuable or fun than spending extra time with family and friends or even alone doing something you want to do.

Unless your family sucks, then even a crappy job is better than staying at home.