nhs pension , 1995 section

justme111

xylophone wrote: »

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/Documents/Pensions/Look_up_table_for_2015_arrangements_V1_03.14.pdf


http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/pensions/nhs-pension-scheme/new-2015-scheme/summary-of-the-final-agreement



See above- "protection from further change for 25 years"

Protection ? They say it is their intention to adopt it , cynical me has doubts it will get beyond intentions. Whenever politicians say something is not going to happen it is a good indicator it will happen .
Besides they don't even need to do any changes to a pension.scheme , it will suffice to raise the pension age a few times for this pension to be noore than ever eluding carrot. Because if by the time I am 60 pension age is increased to 75 actuarial reduction would be far more severe as it would mean taking pension not 7 but 15 year years early.

hyubh

justme111 wrote: »

Protection ? They say it is their intention to adopt it, cynical me has doubts it will get beyond intentions.

Compare with the actually-existing CARE LGPS in England and Wales then.

Whenever politicians say something is not going to happen it is a good indicator it will happen .

A strong union presence acts as a strong counter-measure to that. An unfashionable thought maybe, but a true one.

Besides they don't even need to do any changes to a pension.scheme , it will suffice to raise the pension age a few times for this pension to be noore than ever eluding carrot.

Sorry, but this is frankly deluded talk.

Because if by the time I am 60 pension age is increased to 75 actuarial reduction would be far more severe as it would mean taking pension not 7 but 15 year years early.

You have just plucked age 75 out of the air. It will take many years for a normal retirement age of 75, and if it were to happen, then the chances are your life expectancy will be north of 100.

Put another way: why should taxpayers (most of whom do not enjoy a generous DB scheme and have a crappy DC one instead) pay for you to retire on two thirds your final salary, index linked, age 60, with prospectively 30 years of retirement, and potentially another 10 years (say) of paying out a survivor pension?

justme111

Strong union presence ? Now who is talking deluded talk..
75 - indeed plucked out of thin air . Ok , let's say 70. Or you don't think that in 20 years time there would be at least one more increase ?
I don't argue that taxpair should do this and that. I am just saying that it is not happening and it will not be as one of the earlier posters said - you would retire at 63 with a sum that previously you could get at 60 , the goalposts are going to be kept moving . That's the significance of changing.NHS retirement ages to basic pension age - what used to be more in.control of a union now is not and moved once the door been.opened to more moves.I don't say whether its good or bad , I am saying that we bought into promise which is not going to materialise, be it for right or wrong reasons

hugheskevi

I am saying that we bought into promise which is not going to materialise, be it for right or wrong reasons

That is misunderstanding the nature of the protection.

The protection is that the structure of the pension - which includes a link between Normal Pension age and State Pension age - will not change for 25 years, unless costs escalate above the cost cap or a period of enhanced consultation is undertaken.

Enhanced consultation may not sound like much of a guarantee, but Parliament has very few ways to bind a successors hand. So the best that can be done is to include such provisions in primary legislation so a future Government has to pass a new Bill to repeal it (ie it will take time and it will be debated in Parliament). That is part of the reason why you get daft legislation such as law to make Government address the number of children in families with income below 60% of median household income (or child poverty as it was commonly expressed), and laws about tackling deficit and such like.

Uncertain Normal Pension Ages are fairly common in the few remaining private sector Defined Benefit pensions, usually called Longevity Adjustment Factors or something similar (for example, British Aerospace). This links the Normal Pension Age to an actuarial longevity table, so any unexpected changes in longevity (over and above those expected) affect the Normal Pension age.

It is a shame the Govt. couldn't have gone for something more like those private sector arrangements which have a robust actuarial underpinning when designing the new schemes, rather than use the political football that is State Pension age, but in theory at least it should work out to be much the same sort of thing.

justme111

Somehow costs escalating above the cost cap seems to be the most likely outcome so all this protection would be out of the window
Liked political football wording.