MSE News: Public sector pension benefits should be cut – report

Andy_L

bilbo51 wrote: »

That's just nonsense. At the time the benefits accrue the current scheme is available to all scheme members.

No it isn't. Whilst the 2008 scheme is avaliable to all members there are almost no circumstances where it is in the interest of the pre-2008 member to leave the old scheme & transfer to the new one

Old_Slaphead

Fairzo wrote: »

Where a pension scheme has been changed from a normal pension age of 60 to one with a NPA of 65 (i.e the LGPS changed in 2008) is it possible to take an (unreduced) pension based under the original scheme at 60, with the further pension based on years accrued under the 2008 scheme payable at 65 (or whatever the NPA becomes)? Although there is reference to rights being "protected" it is unclear whether this extends to the terms of eligibility for payment.

To put this into context I am currently 53 with 35 years accrued pre-2008 and ongoing service post-2008.

If you qualify under the 'rule of 85' (which you obviously do) then I understand the answer is yes.
The post 2008 benefits will be subject to taper relief if you hit 60 between 2016-2020,
As you'll get their around 2018 you'll get 50% relief on the normal early access penalty of around 4% pa.
To summarise - the rules as they stand at the moment - at 60 you'll be able to take pre 2008 benefits + post 2008 benefits with around 10% deduction.

If my understanding is incorrect I'd be grateful if someone puts me right.

Velcro_Hotdog

Out of interest how many police officers, fire fighters, prison officers etc actually work in that role right up until retirement? Lots of comments on here about not being able to do the job up until age 68 but I have never meet a 60 year old fire fighter. I know a 60 year old ex fire fighter who now works a desk job for the service teaching the public. And I know a 58 year old ex police officer who now runs a secruity firm but nerver seen a 65 year old arresting people or breaking down doors to rescue people and put fires out.

Excuss my ignorance but I dont see how the changes will effect these people as much as they claim they will. Will these people not work till they are unable to do so say for agruments sake 40s then move on to another career for the rest of their working life and make other pension and savings arrangements which will run along side a FS payment at retirement?

Butti

Stargazer57 wrote: »

Cameron's already given his up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289001/BUDGET-2010-David-Cameron-says-Im-giving-66-000-pension.html

He's giving his up but he's not removing the pension perks from his job, the job of the speaker or the job of the leader of the house. Yes he deserves a pat on the back for that but the pension for those posts remain.

B

mcgsp

It's not true that existing pension rights already built up won't be affected. My pension is to be uprated by the CPI rather than the RPI. If I live until average age I can expect my pension to be lower by at least 25%.

Old_Slaphead

mcgsp wrote: »

It's not true that existing pension rights already built up won't be affected. My pension is to be uprated by the CPI rather than the RPI. If I live until average age I can expect my pension to be lower by at least 25%.

You know what future inflation will be?

Based on historical data (over last 20 years) - someone leaving at 65 will be approx 14% worse off by the time they get to 85 that's an average reduction in pension of 7%pa.

ds9074

bilbo51 wrote: »

That's just nonsense. At the time the benefits accrue the current scheme is available to all scheme members.

It is not nonsense because while the new 2008 scheme is open to all staff the old 1995 scheme, which is very arguably more generous, is not.

To put it in the extreme you could have two members of staff doing the same role, one who started in March 2008 and is therefore on the old, more generous scheme, with a normal retirement age of 60 and one who started in April 2008 on the new, less generous scheme, with a normal retirement age of 65. How can that be fair?

I agree with protecting rights already built up as you paid your money on the basis of those rights but an employer has to have the flexibility to change the pension scheme going forward to take account of change of circumstances. I personally think it is fairer to switch everyone onto the new scheme.

50Twuncle

What concerns me is what will happen to existing receivers of pensions (I am 47 years old and am on an ill health retirement pension from civil service)
Will they try to claw money back from me - or once receiving a pension - am I safe ?

Old_Slaphead

will-in-estoril wrote: »

• Where exactly do you get your 'evidence' that the schemes are being undermined by a few big payouts at the top? Certainly not from Hutton or the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has confirmed that costs of the schemes begin to fall from 2015.

Only relative to GDP - and that's pretty subjective given the expected increases in the next few years and the Treasury's propensity to get forecasts wrong!

JamesU

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

You know what future inflation will be?

Based on historical data (over last 20 years) - someone leaving at 65 will be approx 14% worse off by the time they get to 85 that's an average reduction in pension of 7%pa.

Can you explain how you reach the 7% figure? You have lost me on this bit.

JamesU