Ask the Pensions Minister about the future of pensions

chris_m

In other words, just the same as anyone else on an x/40 final salary scheme.

Andy_L

johnaka wrote: »

and why is it that if you are an MP you get £1,000 pension for every year your an MP.say your an MP for 9 years you get £9,000 a year pension ,where as I have paid in for over 40 years and that is all I get.so how is that fair?

Because pensions are part of total renumeration & not everyone gets paid the same

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Think you're undervaluing it - £66,000 x 1/40 = £1,650pa or £14,850 for 9 years.

Or possibly overvaluing it. The MPs scheme has accrual rates from 1/40ths to 1/60ths depending on when they joined & the personal contribution they choose to pay

John_Pierpoint

For ordinary wage slaves 1/60th is considered a "good" occupational scheme. The sort that private commerce is shutting down as not sustainable in the rush to money purchase.

Presumably 1/40th is gold plated with someone else's money - ie the tax payer's money.

Stargazer57

Andy_L wrote: »

Or possibly overvaluing it. The MPs scheme has accrual rates from 1/40ths to 1/60ths depending on when they joined & the personal contribution they choose to pay

The actuarial valuation of the scheme of 2008 showed that 579 out of 634 members had opted to pay the contributions necessary to accrue pension at 1/40. So whilst you are correct in theory, more than 90% of MPs are on 1/40. It also tells us that even though the extra contributions being paid are meant to cover the full cost of the increase from 1/50 to 1/40 the vast majority of MPs think the terms are a good deal, which suggests they are lining their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer yet again.

wotsthat

and why is it that if you are an MP you get £1,000 pension for every year your an MP.say your an MP for 9 years you get £9,000 a year pension ,where as I have paid in for over 40 years and that is all I get.so how is that fair?

because it's part of the overall pay package that MP's receive.There are only 646 MP's and the sums of money are tiny.

I want the government to spend time putting in policies that have the potential to enrich 60,000,000 people and not waste time having to answer questions like this which they've done time and time again.

I'm amazed just how many people fail to get the bigger picture.

Ask them something hard. Why haven't they got the balls to force people, who are able, to save for retirement? If people took more responsibility for themselves a lot of the waffle on here could be avoided.

dunstonh

MPs typically have a shorter time to qualify for benefits. They havent got the security of 40 years in the same role. So, in that respect it is common sense that they get a faster accrual rate.

wotsthat

MPs typically have a shorter time to qualify for benefits. They havent got the security of 40 years in the same role. So, in that respect it is common sense that they get a faster accrual rate.

Yeah but that's more than me - that can't be fair can it? (removes tongue from cheek).

mrs_formby

Minister
If you had been born female after April 6th 1954 and before 1st January 1956 you would already have had your pension age delayed by up to 5 years. Why has this government chosen to single out this particular group and make them wait until 66 before receiving their state pensions? You may say you must start savings somewhere but being a member of this group, I feel doubly discriminated against. A man born in this period has not had his retirement age delayed by 6 years. Have your advisers said this particular group of women have been "walked over" most of their life & will just accept it ? As it is well documented that women, and especially those in their 50's, are still not paid as much as men for the same jobs, I do think you are rubbing our noses in it, don't you?
From
Mrs Formby

dunstonh

A man born in this period has not had his retirement age delayed by 6 years.

No. Men were born with the delay already in place.