LGPS pension - what do do with it?!

System

Hi

Yes we did.

When the inflation rate was a minus figure, something the regulations didn't cover, it was set at 0% for LGPS purposes, and YES we did send out an ABS to those Deferred members giving them exactly the same figures as the previous year.

We never even deducted the postage costs from the amount;)))

MRMX9

As has been said leave it where it is.

It rises annually in value by inflation – and the payout is linked to your final salary not the stock market. So if you retire the day before a stock market crash your pension is not affected – which it would be if you had a personal pension
If you die early your spouse/civil partner and kids will get death benefits equal I believe to 5 times your deferred pension – plus an ongoing annual pension
If you end up having permanent ill health which stops you from working you may well be able to get paid your benefits immediately

Also ask your pension fund administrator for a statement and access to their online service – which most LGPS administrators have. You can then check your pension value and your annual statement on line at any time – you can also amend your address details via this route too if you move and change your nominated death beneficiary if you remarry etc

benalder284

Fellow LGPS scheme member here - the pension you have already earned is investment risk-free and index-linked - leave it where it is. You would need a significant amount in any DC scheme to 'buy' the equivalent benefits.

I work in Local Govt finance and am always amazed (but no longer surprised) at the number of employees or in your case ex-employees who do not appreciate the significant benefits which such a scheme offers at relatively low cost to the employee. Employer contribution rates are another matter!

kidmugsy

benalder284 wrote: »

I work in Local Govt finance and am always amazed (but no longer surprised) at the number of employees or in your case ex-employees who do not appreciate the significant benefits which such a scheme offers at relatively low cost to the employee.

Aye, and it's pretty obvious from many posts here. But when I point out that one must infer therefore that DB pensions are an extravagantly inefficient way to attract and retain staff, a great wailing goes up. Quite why people think one ought to prefer an inefficient method is never made clear. It's odd; I usually take pains to explain that an alternative method of attraction and retention would be required; no doubt that would often be higher pay.

benalder284

kidmugsy wrote: »

But when I point out that one must infer therefore that DB pensions are an extravagantly inefficient way to attract and retain staff, a great wailing goes up. Quite why people think one ought to prefer an inefficient method is never made clear. It's odd; I usually take pains to explain that an alternative method of attraction and retention would be required; no doubt that would often be higher pay.

I agree with your sentiment. I suspect one of the issues key issues (apart from the likely reaction from the trade unions to any proposed change out of principle) would be that the short-term financial implications for the next public spending round would be utterly unbearable given most of the public sector schemes are of course unfunded. You would be pushing up the pay bill now but any savings would be many years in the future and given my job, I'll need to be careful how I phrase this, most politicians planning horizon doesn't really stretch that far (witness climate change, energy policy, failure to address long-term care costs etc. etc.)

kidmugsy

benalder284 wrote: »

apart from the likely reaction from the trade unions to any proposed change out of principle

That'll be the principle of always behaving as bloody-minded reactionaries I assume, with added doses of stupidity, ignorance and malice.

benalder284 wrote: »

would be that the short-term financial implications for the next public spending round would be utterly unbearable

I see that as a great merit: ensure that the pols are made to really appreciate how godawful expensive these nonsenses are. Anyway, they could start with the one big funded scheme, the LGPS, and see how it goes.

benalder284

kidmugsy wrote: »

That'll be the principle of always behaving as bloody-minded reactionaries I assume, with added doses of stupidity, ignorance and malice.

Not a member so I couldn't possibly comment......;)

Given that DB schemes are all but dead in the private sector, I suspect that over time the sheer unfairness/differences (delete as politically so-minded) between the pensions of public and private sector employees will become increasingly politicised and may become one that politicians cannot ignore - but remember even the current government who haven't exactly been shy at taking on controversial issues ended-up pulling back more than a little when negotiating recent changes in public sector schemes (despite what many union members seem to think).

hyubh

kidmugsy wrote: »

I see that as a great merit: ensure that the pols are made to really appreciate how godawful expensive these nonsenses are. Anyway, they could start with the one big funded scheme, the LGPS, and see how it goes.

So you want to deliberately cause a funding crisis in the LGPS. Riiight...

(Remind everyone about your own final salary pensions by the way. Because otherwise, your posts could suggest a certain envy, and that wouldn't really be correct, would it?)