No, I did not. Most public sector pensions are unfunded, or "pay as you go" in the parlance. The payouts are funded by current contributions and taxes (the contributions fall way short). The calculated liability of a scheme is the amount needed to pay all current and deferred pensions, and all accrued benefits to currently contributing members.So by Unfunded, you mean the Civil service, thanks for clearing that up. So that excludes the NHS, plice and fire departments, local governemnt and armed forces, who all have contributory pension schemes which they pay for throughout their working lives.
The schemes vary quite widely in contribution levels, but how contributory they are is largely academic to their tax payer liability, because those contributions are themselves paid for by taxation, and the contributions are used simply to part pay current pensions (the rest coming directly from tax rather than indirectly).
Of course, from an employees point of view it does make a difference. The difference between the true cost of the benefits you are accruing and the amount you are actually contributing is effectively extra unstated income.
Some of the largest liabilities:
Civil Service: 116 billion
NHS: 200 billion
Local Government: 159 billion (although these have assets of 132 billion)
Armed Forces: 91 billion
Teachers: 169 billion
All of this must be paid for out of tax, whether directly, or indirectly via contributions from public sector pay.
I thought your logic was that because not all public sector pensions are the same there is not such a thing as a public sector pension. My point was that but the same logic there is no such thing as a private sector one either. Maybe what you meant was there was no such thing as a publicly funded public sector pension outside of the civil service: in which case see above.It's not a strange thing to assert at all - what I was arguing against was the perception (mainly in newspapers such as the daily Torygraph) that there is a "Public sector pension." There isn't. As you correctly state, it's exactly the same for most of us as it is in the private sector.
This is almost completely wrong in every respect. The civil service is like most public sector pension schemes (depending on metric) in that it is contributory, is final salary and is not funded. Private sector schemes that were similar to the public sector ones have typically been closed and had reduced benefits precisely because these schemes are untenable with modern demographics.But what people generally home in on is the civil service pension scheme which is non-contributory and based on a final salary, so costs the taxpayer fortunes - as opposed to the other 90+% of the public sector who fund their own pensions exactly as the private sector do.
Either you have a final salary scheme and are benefiting just like the civil servants from being in a scheme that places a massive burden on future tax payers, or your scheme is actually funded and you will get what your share of the fund can provide at retirement (like private sector pensions). You're trying to claim yours is equitable and yet will be harmed by the government reigning in final salary schemes. You can't have it both ways sunbeam.However any 'reforms' from govenment are often applied blanket - so something that merely grazes their pensions often hits the rest of us a lot harder.
I've worked in the public sector my whole life - and my final pension will be based on my contributions, and nothing else. Because I donate to a pension fund which is index-linked to the stock-market, exactly the same as your pension fund.