Partial retirement from civil service advice
Comments
-
The aim of CS PR is to provide a transition from full time to retirement. The benefit to the individual is that it less abrupt (so working only 3 days a week for a period) and retains the same income. The benefit for the employer is that it means particular skills and experience is not lost in an abrupt way and it does not provide any increase in income. In that case T&C are not affected as employment is continuous. It is just the same as asking an employer to move to part time working, you are not treated as a new employee for doing this but your working pay is reduced pro-rata. For PR working pay is then supplemented by part of your pension being paid.
Sounds almost identical to LGPS flexible retirements. Main difference, by the sounds of it, is that the LGPS version involves a 'clean break' in pension rights even when the flexible retiree opts not to draw everything to date (this being in the context of multiple memberships being very much a 'thing' in the LGPS).0 -
jamesperrett wrote: »In addition to the examples already mentioned, we have a fully equipped machine shop at NOC and employ around 15 mechanical technicians including a couple who specialise in welding.
NOC? filler0 -
-
The question Muscle750 ought to be asking is "Why isn't a comparable scheme to that which is still available in the public sector available for people who work in the private sector to join?" The idea that you can make everything right by having a "race to the bottom" for working people's pension benefits would seem to benefit only those who run private schemes - and, probably, the Government itself. My view is that successive Governments' almost total abdication of all responsibility to plan and manage an effective and reasonable pension scheme for all working people in the UK is nothing short of an absolute disgrace and a national scandal.0
-
Sounds almost identical to LGPS flexible retirements. Main difference, by the sounds of it, is that the LGPS version involves a 'clean break' in pension rights even when the flexible retiree opts not to draw everything to date (this being in the context of multiple memberships being very much a 'thing' in the LGPS).
I think it is similar in concept but the rules are a little different. The post by johndough created some confusion. The LGPS Flexible Retirement scheme clearly does not require all the benefits to be taken on FR, just those before 2008. Either way it did not help the OP.
Does abatement apply to LCPS? (ie pension drawn + reduced pay must not be greater than original pay)Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
The question Muscle750 ought to be asking is "Why isn't a comparable scheme to that which is still available in the public sector available for people who work in the private sector to join?" The idea that you can make everything right by having a "race to the bottom" for working people's pension benefits would seem to benefit only those who run private schemes - and, probably, the Government itself. My view is that successive Governments' almost total abdication of all responsibility to plan and manage an effective and reasonable pension scheme for all working people in the UK is nothing short of an absolute disgrace and a national scandal.
A good point. Earlier Muscle quoted some vitriolic article from the press that rather distorted an OECD report. The OECD report makes some interesting points about the different ways that nations address pensions. The UK has a basic scheme for all citizens and relies on them auto enrolling into private schemes (which vary in quality from low employer contributions to a DC scheme to high employer contribution DB schemes), Other nations have a much better common scheme that all citizens contribute towards.
This is the real problem that we face as the gap is too great between the extremes. The lowering of the lifetime allowance is affecting this, although much to the chagrin of the pensions industry, by removing the tax beaks for those who have the better pensions (be they well paid business executives or higher paid public sector workers.).Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Does abatement apply to LGPS? (ie pension drawn + reduced pay must not be greater than original pay)
No, or at least not under the current regulations (I'd have to check for when flexible retirement first came in). If I'm reading the civil service scheme guides correctly, another difference is that an actuarial reduction isn't necessarily applied if flexibly retired before NPA in the LGPS - reason being, the possibility of strain charges (if an employer wants to be generous, they can, but if so they are billed for their generosity up front).0 -
For anyone interested,.The forms have gone in 3 day week approved and pension applied for. Roll on September. Thanks for all the replies, even the amusing and abusive ones.��0
-
I can't advise on the financials, but for what it's worth, 6 managers in my department took partial retirement and all of them agreed it was the best thing they'd ever done (not sure if it's coincidence though or if the financial incentives only really work at a higher grade, but they were all the most senior managers in the department).
@muscle750 my husband's private sector and he has the option to retire at 60 with no financial penalty... while my civil service pension age was 67. It's not really fair to just make sweeping (& bitter) assumptions based on one person's comments/circumstances noted in a forum.
Learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.0 -
Dixy, while I was not technically still a "Civil Servant", as company was TUPE'd to "a wholly owned subsidiary", for 22 years and was then brought back under BEIS department (but we were still not classed as CS again). I took both my CS pension and the "WOS" final salary pensions last year, dropped to a three day week and started paying into the Stakeholder pension. Best move ever, win, win for me. Love three days a week, so 24 hours rather than 36, pension money and still being paid, slightly more than a State Pension would be, so preparing me for full retirement in 2020 paying less tax but another pension pot is being added to, so if you can still pay into the new CS pension, do it. SP is being added to as well due the the contracted out part of the CS pension.
I was intrigued by the post about not being allowed to earn more, with the pension added part, than if you were still full time as I am now taking more money home per month, so is this only a "full" Civil Servant thing? Due the the PA going on the pay, I am paying more tax on the two pensions than the take home pay for the working part, so I might need to look at upping the Stakeholder pension per month which after doing it for a year I know I can live on that option, it would make me "really" live on my retirement monthly income.Paddle No 21 :wave:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards