Public Sector Pensions...

chewmylegoff

dori2o wrote: »

IF, we are forced to pay more for our pension from our monthly salary then there should be the chance to opt out. The CS pension is compulsary and by that basis I should decide what contribution is paid into it.

it isn't compulsory. you already have the option to pay what you want in - leave the defined benefit scheme and join the stakeholder (partnership) scheme, which does not require you to make any employee contribution (you still get 12.5% employer contribution).

chewmylegoff

roddydogs wrote: »

Surely most PS pensions are "Non Contributory"?

the only public sector pension scheme i know of that is non-contributory is the partnership scheme which is a stakeholder into which the govt pays 12.5% of your salary even if you don't contribute. if you do contribute it will match your contributions up to an additional 3%.

the defined benefit schemes operated by the civil service require an employee contribution, which is currently 3.5% i think.

of course, this contribution is only really a nominal deduction on the payslip. it doesn't go anywhere because the civil service schemes are entirely unfunded.

this fact means that really what they are saying is "we will pay you 3.5% less than your agreed salary now in return for paying a pension to you in the future"

if the govt now decides that the employee contribution needs to increase to, say, 6%, what they are really doing is giving CS workers a paycut - because the pension they get in the future remains the same. but people don't necessarily think about it in these terms, so it's easier to get people to swallow a pay cut by calling it "increased pension contributions" than it is to get them to accept a reduction to their gross wage.

thescouselander

muhasib wrote: »

Odd that the contributor chose an old US army photo and not one of HM Forces, housing for those who are Soldiers under Training or in their first posting isn't exactly luxurious or private and still causes junior soldiers to believe that getting married early is the quick way to getting their own home. There is free dental treatment but food is mainly provided as Pay as You Dine so while subsidised is not 'heavily' as is stated.

For anyone who thinks the £16k is good you only have to think about the working hours on deployment as it isn't 9-5 5 days a week; with the Operational Allowance now doubled it provides a reward for this.

It depends on what you'd call heavily subsidised but I remember staying in a mess and eating a 3 course meal for £2.50. If thats not heavily subsidised I don't know what is.

tartanterra

Sphynx wrote: »

I already pay 11% into my public sector pension.
There have been areas of the public service that traditionally don't contribute much towards their pension (armed forces) :mad:

If you are going to comment an Armed Forces pensions, you should do your homework first.

Armed Forces pay is abated to take account of the Armed Forces pension.
It is something that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body have to take into account when reviewing pay.

Just over 20 years ago, pay was abated by around 13% to take account of the pension, but this has been slowly reduced over the years to around 8% as the buying power of the pension has been eroded (by surprise, surprise - house price inflation).
The decision to recommend a reduction of the abatement to pay is the preserve of the AFPRB - an independent body. The decision to implement it, is the Government's.

Have a look at some old AFPRB reports which contain this information rather than bashing the Armed Forces, as so many people on here seem to enjoy.

Andy_L

roddydogs wrote: »

Surely most PS pensions are "Non Contributory"?

No, only the military pension is non-contributory. Even then pay scales are abated to allow for an employee contribution. Arguably though its irrelevant whether theres a contribution or not as it still, ultimately, all comes from the same pot

StevieJ

muhasib wrote: »

Odd that the contributor chose an old US army photo and not one of HM Forces,

Sorted+++ .

Liquorice_Twirls

roddydogs wrote: »

Surely most PS pensions are "Non Contributory"?

Those in the Local Government Pension Scheme pay between 5.5% and 7.5% of their pay in pension contributions. For example someone on average Uk wages which I think is around £24k would pay 6.5%.

The average employee contribution is 6.4%.

There are 3.5 million members in the Local Govt Pension Scheme so no, most PS pensions are not non-contributory.

sammyjammy

Andy_L wrote: »

No, only the military pension is non-contributory. Even then pay scales are abated to allow for an employee contribution. Arguably though its irrelevant whether theres a contribution or not as it still, ultimately, all comes from the same pot

Not strictly true, my pension in DWP is non-contributory, or almost. I am in the Classic scheme and pay only 1.5% widows pension contribution, if (as now) I remain unmarried until retirement most of these widows pension contributions will be refunded to me.

Running_Horse

Here's a proposal. Merge all public and private schemes into one national scheme where every employer and employee compulsorily contribute the same amount. We would all have to pay a little more to gradually move all pensions to pre funded status, rather than burdening our children with future debts, and there would be no difference in benefits between the public and private sector. We could call it the Old Age Pension, and call contributions National Insurance, or something similar like the Big Society.

Sphynx

tartanterra wrote: »

If you are going to comment an Armed Forces pensions, you should do your homework first.

Armed Forces pay is abated to take account of the Armed Forces pension.
It is something that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body have to take into account when reviewing pay.

Just over 20 years ago, pay was abated by around 13% to take account of the pension, but this has been slowly reduced over the years to around 8% as the buying power of the pension has been eroded (by surprise, surprise - house price inflation).
The decision to recommend a reduction of the abatement to pay is the preserve of the AFPRB - an independent body. The decision to implement it, is the Government's.



Have a look at some old AFPRB reports which contain this information rather than bashing the Armed Forces, as so many people on here seem to enjoy.

I am not out to bash the armed forces, and I am aware that pay is abated in some public sector jobs. I think the armed forces deserve their pay and pensions. I was just pointing out that some public sector jobs do not have a contributing factor to the pay scheme whilst others do. To joe public it must seem that such positions are getting something (and quite a big something) for nothing and that is how it will be portrayed by the media if that is the route they choose to go down...