• The post you are reporting:
   
  The simple answer is that such schemes are totally unaffordable and if you want more unemployed and business bankruptcies forcing them to provide schemes such as the public sector will do just that.
  
  The 35% is simply the amount that would need to be invested, using a reasonable set of calculations on a basis allowed by the FSA, to build a fund sufficient to provide a comparable pension. The actual fund will depend on the success of the investment strategy, the risk profile of the member, the level of inflation and annuity rates at the time of retirement.
  
  We have had a number of issues hit the viability of defined benefit pension schemes such as the public sector schemes: Some of these factors also result in the need for private sector employees to pay more into their own schemes.
  ..Mortality rates, people are living longer so a bigger fund is needed to provide the guaranteed level of pension from such schemes.
  ..15 year gilt rates have fallen like a stone further bringing down annuity rates. QE is forcing these rates down further. That means the amount of income generated from each £1,000 of fund is falling.
  ..admin and regulatory costs - these include regulations imposed under the 1995 Act as well as more recent changes such as the need to fund the Pension Protection Fund - complying with new EU laws etc.
  ..generally poor investment returns since 1999 have also had an impact on scheme funding levels.
  ..The taxation of pension funds has also had an impact taking £5bn a year from schemes already under pressure.
  
  I could go on but it is wrong that the public sector should enjoy such feather bedded pensions paid for from the taxes paid by people who are not putting enough into their own pensions.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason