Govt plans pensions deal to counter public sector unrest

How on earth can it be possible to maintain public sector pensions at their current level with only a modest alteration to the employee contributions?

You don't wipe away a £1trillion deficit by getting the members to pay an additional couple of % on their contribution rate and I don't think the unions will be persuaded of that either.

Asking pension members to contribute a few quid more is missing the point entirely.

Final salary pension schemes are not sustainable and cause untold long term damage to the businesses or industries duty bound to provide them.

Lets honour existing accrued benefits and rights, grit our teeth and put in place a long term achievable recovery plan to reduce scheme deficits and set up a flexible GPP going forward with a decent employer contribution that is in line with the average contribution tems of the private sector.

35 years ago when I started work for one of the best retailers in the country my final salary scheme was calculated with the state pension included within the final benefit figure. The same employer now no-longer has a DB scheme but a money purchase scheme fought over by unions.

It seems crazy to me that with such a deficit as GM has pointed out, that a few tweaks will reduce the burden now facing the country, no one is insulated from this in the real world, perhaps the introduction of a Money Purchase scheme for all new entrants would be a start.

If, and if being a big word, the civil servants who do make the decisions on high, yes I know it is the minority, were exposed to the same market forces as all the plumbers, car salesmen, draughtsmen, architects, solicitors, retail staff, boatbuilders, factory workers, the general public, then their mind might , just might be a little closer on the outcome for the nation as a whole rather than excluding a safeguarded few.

I find it hard to justify anyone who is receiving a pension in excess of £75,000 or even, a pension qualifying for 40% tax treatment, to be given the social safetynet state pension? Perhaps I'm wrong, but if we can't afford a luxury at home then we forgo it for either for an alternative, or altogether. The nation cannot afford this luxury.

I would be more radical with the State Pension than David and Nick: I would introduce an emergency state retirement age of 70, increase the benefit to compensate the difference now, but then allow early retirement from age 66 as per their proposal with a 4% penalty reduction for each year before age 70. If you go back to work during this period, and you pause the payments, you can add 4% for each full year you do not draw from the fund.

I also would like the government to change the name of the National Insurance system. It was meant as an insurance for the nation to help those least able to help themselves and pay for all the fanatastic services we have in the UK. But perhaps it needs to have a name change, as so many now believe anything they have paid into gives a right to receive. I pay my house insurace every year, I pay my car isnurance every year, I do not expect to receive anything back, in fact I dont want to suffer a loss in order to make a claim.

I agree with Mr Junior. The public sector pensions are a luxury that the rest of us cannot afford to pay. The state pension is only £95 per week. We have to honour current obligations in the public sector but I think future money would be better allocated to providing a liveable state pension for all, instead of a "gold-plated" retirement for the 1 in 6 that work for the State. Nothing comparable is available in the vast majority of private sector enterprises.

1agree with Laura

Here's an idea, let the unions take over the funding of the public sector schemes and the government contribute a fixed amount to the scheme in line with private sector employer contribution limits. Should this be insufficient to fund for full benefits then the unions can always make "some fairly modest alterations to their member subscriptions to cover this !!!