Letter: No cause for complaint on pensions

The government is losing the argument about civil service pensions. It should tell the public how much money civil servants pay into their pension schemes.

They should then calculate how much is received in return. Civil servants - if they were good socialists and cared - should be embarrassed at the results.

Using approximate figures, from my point of view, after 10 years' service I will have contributed about 10,000. I will receive about 3,500 per year. At 60.

Not a great sum, but, for what I put in, I cannot complain. Within three years I will receive my total contributions back.

Should I live to 90, that means that the taxpayer will be subsidising me to the tune of about 95,000 (total pension 105,000 less my 10,000 contribution). Without index linking! Is that fair?

But, unions say, the government intends to increase contributions.

OK. Suppose they do and I had put into my pension double the amount. My contribution would have been 20,000 - for a 105,000 return (without index linking). Again, a fantastic investment!

Then, say the unions, we will have to work to 65. OK. That would mean my contribution would be 30,000. Because I would have worked half as much again, my pension would be, in round figures, at least 5,000.

Over 25 years that would be about 125,000. Again, a fantastic investment.

You can work out figures should I die earlier but, should that happen, my wife will continue to receive half of my pension.

Like many civil servants, my salary is not great. But, within my branch my salary is above the industry average.

So, my salary is above the private sector and my pension is well above the private sector. And our unions, not to mention the workers themselves, are complaining? Talk about "money grabbing capitalists".

JOSEPH W ADAM-SMITH

Waterside Patna

East Ayrshire

PERHAPS those arguing that we need a bigger population of younger people to ensure we can afford to look after our elderly in the future (your report, 14 July) might explain how this is sustainable in the longer term.

Surely that younger population will themselves grow older and then the country will need an even larger number of young people to look after them, as they live longer still. Where does this end? Maybe a better way forward is to consider our spending priorities as a country and as individuals, as well as ensuring that those able to pay tax do so.

Peter Moore

Bellevue Road

Ayr