Public v Private Sector Pensions

tgon

bigadaj wrote: »

I think the real problem isn't the public v private debate but the inter generational unfairness. Young people now will be paying for the accrued final salary schemes for decades to come with no opportunity to benefit from them. It would be unfair to chnage retrospectively but it's also very unfair to force the kids and grand kids to pay for the future.

Good point but the same could apply for any large spend government decisions, especially policy reversals by a new government...

Thrugelmir

tgon wrote: »

Good point but the same could apply for any large spend government decisions, especially policy reversals by a new government...

Little scope for that. Plenty of noise in opposition. The reality in power is somewhat different. Citing the excuse now we've seen the books.

loisle

Sorry i`m new and may be doing this incorrectly!!! I am a 57 year old nhs nurse in the nhs superannuation scheme. As a rule of thumb on retirement.. Is it better to opt for the bigger lump sum and smaller monthly income or the smaller lump sum and the bigger monthly income? Thanks!

dunstonh

LOISLE wrote: »

Sorry i`m new and may be doing this incorrectly!!! I am a 57 year old nhs nurse in the nhs superannuation scheme. As a rule of thumb on retirement.. Is it better to opt for the bigger lump sum and smaller monthly income or the smaller lump sum and the bigger monthly income? Thanks!

There is no rule of thumb with defined benefit schemes. It should be based on your financial circumstances, tax position post retirement, health, future financial needs, other assets and liabilities you have amongst other things.

loisle

THANKWS! wHY IS MY HEALTH RELEVANT?

Your_Hero

LOISLE wrote: »

THANKWS! wHY IS MY HEALTH RELEVANT?

If you are in poor health, wouldn't you want a larger lump sum immediately to use as you please rather than a higher income that you may not live long enough to fully enjoy?

loisle

Oh i see! Stupidly obvious really!!!!! Thanks!

atush

Personally, it is my opinion that unless you are in poor health or have debt and no savings set aside, you should always take the larger pension and the lower LS.

As the commutation rate for turning pension into LS is generally dire.

this is assuming you are of normal good health.

sammyjammy

BobQ wrote: »

I agree the pension reforms are necessary, but it will have some interesting consequences in the future. The senior civil service will no longer be comprised of career civil servants who accept low salaries for the responsibilities carried because of a very general FS pension, so they will increasingly join the civil service for the contacts and knowledge of how Government works and then leave much as people swop jobs in the private sector. The only way of stopping this will be to pay higher salaries. The other impact will be that senior civil servants will lose the concept of loyalty and be more self serving. This does have pros and cons but the interchange of jobs may not be in the public interest.

Already happening in DWP, I work on Universal Credit Programme you just have to look at the "leaders" we've had to see it's rife. The trouble is that then you get no leadership and the attitude carries on through the ranks.

I a Higher Exec officer and consider I get paid very well. I have no interest in promotion but I work hard and earn my salary. Ditto for my pension for which I am very grateful. My biggest gripe is the pay disparity between Depts that we now have after 20 years of individual unit pay bargaining. I have friends who work in other Depts with a similar career history as me that "earn" nearly £10k more than me. This is what the unions should address but as they caused it in the first place we'll be waiting a long long time.

Yorkie1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Contribution levels are the same for all grades. Even those on £14k a year.

Just thought I'd respond to this. Contribution rates are now different according to salary level.

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/pensions/reform/contribution-increases