How stupid is my plan?

kidmugsy

hyubh wrote: »

You sure? 'Salary sacrifice' is highly unlikely to be the mechanism through which you contribute to the USS.

There are lots of universities that offer salary sacrifice for USS contributions.

hyubh

kidmugsy wrote: »

There are lots of universities that offer salary sacrifice for USS contributions.

Ah, I stand corrected! I see the possibility is explicitly mentioned in the scheme rules:

http://www.uss.co.uk/schemerules/schemerules2140/Pages/38Salarysacrifice.aspx

Puddylove

hyubh wrote: »

Ah, I stand corrected! I see the possibility is explicitly mentioned in the scheme rules:

http://www.uss.co.uk/schemerules/schemerules2140/Pages/38Salarysacrifice.aspx

I was sure.
I asked for clarification from you so I could more effectively assess your level of knowledge, and thus advice.

Thank you to everyone for taking the trouble to answer me. X

atush

Puddylove wrote: »

Alright! I give in.



In 20yrs when I end up with no pension due to cutbacks, and no ISA, I'm going to move in with one of you...

I dont recall anyone telling you to not save and invest? Everyone should do this alongside a pension.

atush

Puddylove wrote: »

I was sure.
I asked for clarification from you so I could more effectively assess your level of knowledge, and thus advice.

Thank you to everyone for taking the trouble to answer me. X

Disparaging their overall advice due to one small mistake is most unwise of you. the poster is extremely knowledgable.

FatherAbraham

Puddylove wrote: »

I know I get tax relief, and the Uni pays too, but it worries me that they could change terms at any time - I'd feel more in control this way.

You are simply (and dangerously) mistaken. They can't change the terms for the benefits you've already accrued. Those benefits are deferred pay for work already performed.

Worry about future changes when they happen -- but those future changes can't retro-actively alter what you're accumulating now.

Warmest regards,
FA

Southend1

FatherAbraham wrote: »

You are simply (and dangerously) mistaken. They can't change the terms for the benefits you've already accrued. Those benefits are deferred pay for work already performed.

Worry about future changes when they happen -- but those future changes can't retro-actively alter what you're accumulating now.

Warmest regards,
FA

I don't think this is quite correct. For example - if inflation linking were removed for deferred benefits (it has already been capped in USS) this reduces the value of the pension at retirement.

PensionTech

if inflation linking were removed for deferred benefits (it has already been capped in USS)

You sure? I don't think inflation linking can be removed. That would be a detrimental modification. When inflation linking was capped (further) in 2009, that applied only to future benefits, accrued after that date. You may be thinking of the change in RPI to CPI - but that's well-trodden ground, and the point was not that inflation linking was being changed, but rather that inflation itself (or the measure thereof) was being changed, and therefore the change was generally allowed (unless scheme rules specifically identified RPI as the measure of inflation).

kidmugsy

One problem with USS is that their leaflets had for years assured members that their pensions would increase with RPI. But the actual rules were that USS pensions would increase with inflation in the same way as "official pensions" (I think that was the phrase) i.e. civil service pensions and the like.

So when the official pensions swapped to CPI, so did USS. (Had USS been well run, and flush with funds, it could have chosen to continue to use RPI presumably; but it hadn't been.)

Southend1

PensionTech wrote: »

You sure? I don't think inflation linking can be removed. That would be a detrimental modification. When inflation linking was capped (further) in 2009, that applied only to future benefits, accrued after that date. You may be thinking of the change in RPI to CPI - but that's well-trodden ground, and the point was not that inflation linking was being changed, but rather that inflation itself (or the measure thereof) was being changed, and therefore the change was generally allowed (unless scheme rules specifically identified RPI as the measure of inflation).

Actually I think you're right. But theoretically if inflation linking was removed from "official pensions" then USS could remove it also, thereby cutting the value of pension already accrued. I wouldn't put it past government to try to pull something like this, given how desperate they are for us all to work until we drop.