MP's Pensions

BobQ

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Why not pay them all a basic £100k per year, fully taxable, but remove ALL expenses and allowances, full stop, except those required to hire ONE secretary and ONE junior assisstant/researcher. Furthermore, cut ALL second home/London weighting allowances and build/convert an unused government property into a nice bit 600 room travelodge type dorm set-up. D_S

I agree with the general sentiment, although I think travel costs from the centre of their constituency should be paid to those with constituencies more than 20 miles from Parliament together with reasonable travel costs for other business purposes.

I also think that MPs should be banned from undertaking any other work while they are being paid from public funds or from receiving fees for media activities.

Thicko2

I would expect MPs to see a similar impact on their position as being suffered by other public sector workers, doctors are a good example.

Here are some examples from the BMA website on current terms of whats on offer. Good little model to see the total impact of paying more for longer and recieving less.

http://www.bma.org.uk/employmentandcontracts/pensions/nhs_pensions_reform/pensionsreformmodeller.jsp
The following examples are intended to give you an idea how the changes might affect you. Please note that they are purely illustrative and do not constitute financial advice. You can find out more about the potential impact on you by using our online modeller.

Junior doctor - A 25 year-old junior doctor who goes on to follow a consultant career path could have to pay an additional £240,000 in additional lifetime contributions over the current scheme and work eight years more, until the age of 68 to receive a full pension. Their annual pension (assuming they do not take an optional lump sum) is likely to be slightly higher, at around £70,000, but it will be based on career average earnings rather than final salary and received for fewer years, giving them less over the course of an average retirement. Overall, a 25 year-old junior could be paying 2.25 times more in to the scheme to get around 16.5 per cent less out of it
Consultant- A 40-year-old consultant could have to pay an additional £140,000 in lifetime contributions and work an additional seven years, until the age of 67, to receive a full pension. While their annual pension (assuming they do not take an optional lump sum) could be slightly higher, at around £70,000, it will be based on career average earnings rather than final salary and will be received for fewer years, giving them less over the course of an average retirement. Overall, a 40-year-old consultant could be paying twice as much in to the scheme to get around four per cent less over the course of their retirement.
GP – A 40-year-old GP could have to pay an additional £161,000 in contributions and work an additional seven years, until the age of 67, to receive a full pension. While their annual pension (assuming they do not take an optional lump sum) could be slightly higher, at around £80,000, it will be based on a new career average earnings scheme and they will be claiming it for fewer years, giving them less over the course of an average retirement. Overall, a 40-year-old GP could be paying twice as much more in to the scheme to get around 10 per cent less out of it.
SAS doctor – A 40-year-old associate specialist doctor could have to pay an additional £122,000 in lifetime contributions over the current scheme and work an additional seven years, until the age of 67, to receive a full pension. While their annual pension (assuming they do not take an optional lump sum) could be slightly higher, at around £60,000, it will be based on career average earnings rather than final salary and they will be receiving it for fewer years, giving them less over the course of an average retirement. Overall, a 40-year-old associate specialist could be paying one and a half times more in to the scheme to get around 10 per cent less out of it.

BobQ

Thicko2 wrote: »

I would expect MPs to see a similar impact on their position as being suffered by other public sector workers, doctors are a good example.

Here are some examples from the BMA website on current terms of whats on offer. Good little model to see the total impact of paying more for longer and recieving less.........................

By then I suspect that public sector pensions will have been capped at something less than £70K. But they can live in hope......

Thesmiths

We agree that MPs need to get fair wage and pension for what they do.
What I hate is the fact that they are reviewing and changing public sector pensions before adjusting their own.

They have some of the most valuable pensions there are anywhere in the UK. They need to show leadership and understanding before expecting other people to change.
It rather feels as do as we say not as we do at the present time.

novice-saver

MP's pay may or may not be reasonable, but their pension is still best in the land (that I know of):

Do MPs have their own pension scheme?

Yes they do - a final salary scheme with a choice of accrual rates. Members can choose to contribute at 1/40th, 1/50th or 1/60th. It is a contributory pension with the contribution rates set at 11.9%, 7.9% and 5.9% respectively.

• Briefing Paper: Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF)

oldvicar

Unless it has changed recently, a few MPs get a full pension however short their length of service. To be fair, they probably do have a bit of experience as an MP to achieve the posts which give a full pension after just one day's service. I believe the posts include: Speaker, Lord Chancellor (as was), Prime Minister.

Andy_L

novice-saver wrote: »

MP's pay may or may not be reasonable, but their pension is still best in the land (that I know of):

Do MPs have their own pension scheme?

Yes they do - a final salary scheme with a choice of accrual rates. Members can choose to contribute at 1/40th, 1/50th or 1/60th. It is a contributory pension with the contribution rates set at 11.9%, 7.9% and 5.9% respectively.

• Briefing Paper: Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF)

Ignoring the RPI/CPI switch as thats still up in the air:
Armed forces, Police & Fire are as good/better due to earlier retirement ages,
the 1/60ths/5.9% option is much the same as the other public sector schemesschemes
They lose out as they dont get the benifit career pay progression so thier final salary is much the same as thier starting salary and most don't get a full pension

dunstonh

IIRC, MPs cannot commence their pension if they are still serving. The average MP contribution is over 9%. Also, as mentioned above, the lack of career progression means they do not benefit with lower contributions in the early years. It is also based on the salary only which is actually quite low for the positions they hold.

The pension is good in the scheme of things and could do with a little shave but I don't begrudge them it because the people running the country deserve some reward. It's a job that you never get thanked for. You usually end up getting sacked (effectively) and you spend your time serving suffering abuse from the media and the public.

Old_Slaphead

dunstonh wrote: »

The pension is good in the scheme of things and could do with a little shave but I don't begrudge them it because the people running the country deserve some reward. It's a job that you never get thanked for. You usually end up getting sacked (effectively) and you spend your time serving suffering abuse from the media and the public.

How many are actually "running the country"?

The overall package of a £60k plus salary, pension, subsidised canteen & bar, (until recently at least) generous expenses and office costs, some even manage spurious factfinding trips to exotic locations seems quite generous given that many of them still find time to accomodate one or two other sources of earned income.

BTW, other than serving on committes and holding local surgeries, what do back bench MPs actually do ??