A big chunk of your Council Taxes pays for Workers Pensions

@slporchester

Only one problem with your analysis, there is no pot of money for Public Sector pensions. Everything that Civil Servants pay towards their pensions goes straight into Government coffers which is why this Government is complaining that it is untenable (while all independant audits show not) as it has to pay all "pensions" out of central funds. Its also nice to know that while this government is enforcing longer working, extra contributions and a move from RPI to CPI for Public Sector pensions its not enforcing this on MP's pensions - strange that!!

I work for local government, the pay scales are poor in relation to the private sector, working a 51 hour week to earn a mediocre wage, I have paid into my pension for a number of years (15) and even now my annual pension would be less than £1000 a year. I still have ten years to work until I retire, so much for my gold plated pension, perhaps if joe public actually realised how poorly paid the low tier workers are they'd realise we aren't in line for thousands of pounds in pensions!

I'm not too well up on money matters, but Slporchester sound like they made a good point. I couldn't reply to their post as there wasn't any reply link.

I'm not too well up on money matters, but Slporchester sound like they made a good point. I couldn't reply to their post as there wasn't any reply link.

under the table deal here and we will pick up the bill, sold out again money talks

I am extremely surprised that you have not published the details of the new agreement; they say it is now affordable, I would like to make my own judgement on that.
The final salary schemes of the public sector (including MPs) are indeed gold plated. Let me explain why:
In order to pay any pension, there are some very basic rules that are universal, whichever sector.
There needs to be a 'pot' of money built up, over the years one is in a scheme, and that money gets invested in stock markets, bonds, gilts etc to hopefully increase. The money put into the pot derives from two sources - the employer and the employee. In the private sector, the employer's money comes from making profits, in the public sector, it comes from the taxpayer via income tax, VAT and council tax.
It follows that the 'pot' of money is significantly influenced by stock market performance, over which the employer (and employee) have little direct control, but a fact nonetheless.
When someone retires, that pot of money is used to provide a pension, in the private sector by 'selling' your pot of money to an insurer, who guarantees to pay you an agreed pension for the rest of your life. This is done by offering a 'yield' or interest payment on your pot - say a pot of £100,000 may today get an annuity of 5% ie £5000pa for life. To arrive at this yield, the insurer takes into account mortality rates, estimates inflation, and what the 'market' will pay for an investment, called a yield.
Here comes the rub:
In private and public schemes the 'pot' is at the mercy of the stock market investment returns, the level of inflation, and the 'yield' that can be obtained for such a 'pot', as well as the same mortality rates.
It follows that if these factors conspire together ie stock markets fall, mortality rates increase, inflation in the future is estimated to rise, and the 'yield' drops from say 10% (just 7 or 8 years ago) to the current 5%, the 'pot' will buy a significantly lower pension.
This has happened in the last 5-8 years, and a £100,000 pot, would have lost 15% of its value to £85,000, the yield {because of rising inflation and incredible quantitative easing (printing £350bn of money) has halved; thus, the pension in the private sector will have fallen from an expected £10,000 5 years ago (£100000x 10%) to £4,250pa (85000 x 5%)
The private sector has no great aunt Floss to make up this difference, and undoubted pressure on quality of life ensues, which can be imagined.
In the public sector, however, this shortfall - remember their pot will have been affected to the same extent - is made up by the employer, because they have 'guaranteed' their workforce the £10,000 in the above example.
They can only get that shortfall from two sources - the employee and the employer via tax. Note, that your Council tax now comprises on average 26% to pay for LA pension schemes. In the private sector, an employer's contribution varies between 3% and 10% of salaries,on average, La's is 34%.
Fair?

Why has noone brought up the fact that MPs pensions are nowhere near those in the private sector. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the Gander.

paulinekitching1: 'bleat, bleat'. Sixty-one is still early, especially when he may not have had a demanding job. A pal of mine was called into Lambeth as a consultant a couple of years ago. He resigned after a couple of months because it was just so effing stupid. Most decisions were political and favoured ethnic groups over the correct decision. Many of the people he needed to see were scamming on sick leave or so-called orientation courses. It made the way Zimbabwe is run look sensible.

Why not explain what the new pension proposals are then. Are us non local government workers expected to lknow?