Sure, all debts could be made illegal. But I wasn't thinking in such extreme terms. It's much easier to abolish pensions than to blast the concept of debt out of the water.
On the contrary, since there is already cutting-back on the cards, how can it be a debt if it's not even clear how much it's going to be?
Also, how can a future debt be a "debt at the moment"?
Quite; Richard may think it's debt but he hold no paper showing how much it is and when it will be paid. He's relying on promises and vague assurances from the Govt given long ago.
In message , Richard Buttrey writes
A debt is dosh or service owed by one to another. Could the future pension shortfall be described more of a 'future liability' or 'contingent liability' which would appear on the liability side of the Governments Balance sheet along with 'Debtors' which are specific debts.
For future pension liabilities to be 'debts' in the Government Balance sheet, there needs to be a corresponding contra item in the books somewhere and I cant find it.
legislation.
Well I get a pension statement every year laying out how much I'm entitled to and how much I would be entitled to at age 65. So as far as I am concerned my pension scheme *owes* me that.
Neb
I'm not sure about the cutting back- although it may become necessary in the future. My understanding is that all pension rights already earned will stay as they are, with future ones accruing on a diffferent basis.
Neb
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
The future liability gives rise to an effective present debt of calculable magnitude.
Not if the future liability is itself incalculable.
In message , Nebulous writes
How can you quantify that if you dont know how long you are going to live?
Interesting point, but what if it becomes necessary to cut back more than such a method would allow? It's all very well to say that all years before (say) 2015 count on an 80ths basis, and all years after that count on a 160ths basis, or even not at all, but that might *still* not leave enough in the kitty.
It's important to establish first of all whether any cutting back is legally possible *at all* before arguing about how much. I suspect the only realistic cutting back is at the stage where people first enter into pensionable employment.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
It's already happening to the Inland Revenue. A relative of mine who works there reports that his pension entitlement has been altered to x% of
*average* salary while in their employ.
By continuing - surely?
Not quite sure what point you're trying to make. A debt, current now and due to be repaid sometime in the future, is, well errr a debt.
Rgds
__ Richard Buttrey Grappenhall, Cheshire, UK __________________________
"John Redman" wrote
Is that dynamised?
"John Redman" wrote in message news:cvt6gt$jb9$ snipped-for-privacy@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I don't know how the Inland Revenue pension works, but I think you'll find this isn't true. The consultation document that covered most public sector pensions is still being argued over and people were promised that no-one within ten years of retiring when it came out would be affected. The effective date is for people retiring after 2013. As far as I'm aware no changes have been made yet.
Neb
Well it even tells me that- what would be paid out in lump sum, widows and dependants pension.
Of course I can't quantify it- I might make a late burst and become one of the shining lights in the voluntary sector! Then my pension would be much better.
It does lay out a range of options depending on my circumstances though, being affected by what I do rather than under the influence of the pension scheme.
Neb
What's that got to do with the National Debt? It's your pension scheme arrangement.
Not sure what you mean, but they are now saying that it he does 40 years, instead of 40/60th of final salary he'll get 40/60ths of nominal average salary. So the 8k a year he earned when he started will be treated as, er,
8k when he retires; it won't be indexed to inflation or to the prevailing equivalent salary for that grade.It amazes me how all these public sector employees just assume that otehrs are going to fund their pensions for them. Don't they realise that their votes are being bought off them by a government which is expanding the public sector for no other purpose? And which cannot plan past next week's newspaper headlines and has no plan for how to fund this liability?
Public sector employees will get screwed, no question.
"Nebulous" wrote
I am not up to speed on the exact details, but since the liability is unfundable, public sector employees should prepare themselves to be screwed IMHO.
Because its a public sector scheme, where the government will be responsible for meeting a shortfall.
People in unfunded schemes also get pension statements, where the government will be responsible for meeting all the costs.
What I was responding to was this statement by you:-
Quite; Richard may think it's debt but he hold no paper showing how much it is and when it will be paid.
What I was trying to point out was that most of us do hold paper detailing what the liability will be under certain circumstances.
Neb
"John Redman" wrote in message news:cvtl6s$81o$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
I would agree with that- there is likely to be a scaling back of benefits, though as I've said elsewhere it will be difficult to do that for benefits already accrued.
It is probably not affordable, but people in the public sector are often people who value security. They believe they made a compact with their employers- that they would work for less than the going rate in exchange for a high degree of security, including a good pension after they retired. They will not take any change to that very willingly.
Neb
Its possible to close schemes to new entrants. Its also possible to close a scheme altogether, either replacing it with something different or leaving them with nothing at all. I looked at the detail some time ago and seem to remember the intention was to open a new scheme, with people being encouraged to transfer their service across. As people who leave schemes early and do not transfer out do not seem to get a good deal it may be that best advice will be to transfer. From memory I think the proposal was to move to 60ths, of average lifetime earnings though, rather than best/last few years. The thing that has created most hassle so far is the expectation that pensions are not payable until
65, without scaling back. At the moment you can get many public sector pensions at 60.Neb
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.