Saying if the unfunded public sector pension schemes were funded private sector schemes then they would need 35% of salary contributions to build up the lump sum needed to be invested to generate the pension, shows how they compare to the private sector schemes. It does not prove the true cost and show the schemes are unaffordable, because they are not funded private sector schemes. Let me put it this way if I want a income of say £5,000 a year. I either need savings of say £250,000 invested at 5% return with inflation at 3% so that is 2% income £5000, the lump sum needed being highly dependent on interest rates and inflation. Alternatively I need to be producing a income of £5,000 a year through work, etc.. so affordability being dependent on future earnings. The government has a national income GDP that it can tax, it does not make sense for it to fund things by putting by huge cash sums and living off the interest as the country will continue to work producing GDP forever it does not retire on mass to live off investment income. The government is not saying they are going to make all public sector pensions funded schemes, and so need to raise contributions and cut entitlements so they can put by sufficiently large cash sums needed to invest to generate the income paid out in pensions. It is saying pensions are going to continue to be unfunded paid out of current member contributions and tax but are unaffordable because they are worth the equivalent of the huge cash lump sums that would be needed if they were paid by the interest being paid out by those lump sums. That does not make sense. The cash lump sums are imaginary they will never be needed as the government will never cease getting a income, the government has no intention of ever putting by these lump sums, the schemes will remain unfunded paid out of current membership contributions and tax. They are just using them to claim the schemes are facing financial Armageddon as if they suddenly became funded schemes that have put by no money to pay their liabilities. But you would expect these schemes to have huge future liabilities and no funds saved to meet those liabilities the clue is in the name they are unfunded schemes. These imaginary lump sums are simply being used to justify lowering entitlements and increasing contributions by branding the current schemes unaffordable because they would be unaffordable if they suddenly became funded schemes which they are not and are not going to be. Comparing the public sector pensions to funded private sector pensions and so using bond rates and inflation rates to calculate how large a cash lump sum would need to be invested to payout the liabilities does not make sense to me. As the government has no intention of ever coming up with this lump sum investment what does it have to do with the schemes affordability. Since they are going to be paid out of income, then future affordability I think should be calculated as a percentage of income GDP. Just like any other government expenditure. The government does not look at the population and base the affordability of future healthcare, education, welfare, policing, etc... on the size of imaginary lump sums of money it would need to invest to generate the interest to pay for them, lump sums of money it never intends to put by. That makes no sense it pays for current expenditure out of current income and so calculates future expediture affordability as a percentage of future GDP.