Lord Hutton

Longer working, higher pension contributions but lower pay out.
No adverse reaction from public sector workers?

In your dreams sunshine.

Let battle commence.

 

Defined benefit pension schemes have effectively been replaced within the private sector with 'defined contribution' schemes

it only makes economic business sense for the public sector to take its lead from the private sector and do likewise

defined benefit schemes are too costly for future tax payers to underwrite

yes its shite, but we are all in it up to our necks and we must all take a bite of the shit sandwhich

 

Perhaps the unions would like to take over the civil service pension funds and contributions. They could then invest them and preserve their members pensions.
Just carrying out pre-flight checks on my pigs

 

Didn't the miners union do something similar, Then came Brown and raped and pillaged the pot?

I could be wrong, usually am.

 

No-one wants to have their pension arrangements upset or the amount of cash they were hoping to have in retirement reduced.But this is exactly what happened when Gordon Brown raided the company pension funds about 10 years ago.A company pension that is based on Final Salary is now a very rare beast indeed.The same person knew that the Public Sector pension schemes were going to become unaffordable at some time in the future but faced by a little sabre rattling by the Unions(who coincidently pay huge amounts to the Labour Party) hoofed the idea into the long grass for someone else to sort out.The mower has been out and the suggestions put forward on how the "pensions timebomb" can be defused.It was guaranteed to please no-one in the public sector but until someone comes up with a better plan which costs less than the current one we're stuck with it.

 

what happens to my pussers pension

does anybody have a take on what this means to my pussers pension.will it only affect future pension entitlement or will it be applied retrospectively - and what is all this retire at 60 stuff about

 

After I was made redundant the company I worked for closed the final pension scheme (it did not affect my pension). What happened was That from a certain date your old pension remained as it was a percentage of your final salary, any pension years accrued after that were treated differently, you could elect to pay an increased contribution to maintain your pension.

 

Was Hutton the right sort of person to chair this enquiry. The drafts are in his name, so who else was on the board. Bankers that have already feathered their nests, retired Politicians on a sinecure and already getting a handsome pension for serving as an MP for a shorter time than some have spent on one war canoe. Then again Lord Hutton was a Law Lord, so well versed in the art of screwing the masses, appointed by Tony Blair for the Kelly inquiry, and you don't get more highly recommended in the world of duplicity and sleeze, then that.

 

I have no idea about the pedigree of Lord Hutton and his suitability for the inquiry but it does no good to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.The situation he was seeking to address will not go away however much the the siren voices of the Union leaders would have you all believe.Reading the main points that have been suggested it doesn't seem like a bad compromise.Maybe requires a little tweeking here and there and a few anomolies bowling out then agreement could be reached without everyone getting out their pram

 

Two years next month to my lump sum etc so I am quite understandibly nervous, esp as a good proportion of this pension I'm owed was transferred from pusser. I DON'T want HMG forcing me to work an extra 5 years thereby robbing me of my service pension which I needn't have transferred.
That said; I think the Hutton report wasn't too bad... for me.
It's what the CONDEM's do with his recommendations that concerns me...

 

Can somebody help me on this one please? If he means "public sector pensions", where's the bit that refers to MPs' and Ministers' pensions?