public sector pensions

Muscle750

Yesterday on the television we had the head of Surrey police saying that they had no money and faced further budget cuts. however what he failed to convienitly address is the fact that many in the police as do in various other public sector areas take the retirement on a Friday at 55 and restart on the Monday near enough doing the same job. as there is no such thing as a police pension pot and the pension commitments from each force comes from the money allocated to each force annually before they even do anything therefore to me and a lot of others there needs to be a radical overhaul of public sector pensions. I understand that the fire service pensions are under scrutiny and many are unhappy about this. I understand under the new rules coming in if any part of your pension is requested at 55 and it comes from a final salary scheme then you will not be allowed to draw on it unless you have seeked and can show you have independent advice which can carry high costs etc . I was in a final salary scheme at work which was pulled from under our feet without warning as many were in the private sector. we had no choice but in the public sector pensions were far better.
I have no intention of taking any part of my pension at 55 yet I have to work till normal retiring age and can't retire at 55 .

hyubh

Muscle750 wrote: »

many in the police as do in various other public sector areas take the retirement on a Friday at 55

Police pensions were traditionally set up on the basis that an officer worked for 30 years, got their pension, lived on into their mid sixties, and died. This isn't a new thing, and was changed for new starters in 2006.

Not sure what other 'public sector areas' you're referring to - firefighters are similar to police officers, otherwise normal retirement ages in public sector schemes are usually 65 or state pension age, excepting historical cases.

as there is no such thing as a police pension pot

Again, not a new thing. Unfunded pensions is just part of the country's policing bill.

therefore to me and a lot of others there needs to be a radical overhaul of public sector pensions.

In general terms, I think it's reasonable that police officer pensions are quite generous, although the old scheme you have alluded to was rather too generous for modern times. Similarly, I don't begrude the even more generous pensions that members of the armed forces accrue. Do you?

I was in a final salary scheme at work

How many years reckonable membership did you accrue? Just to put things in perspective.

I have no intention of taking any part of my pension at 55 yet I have to work till normal retiring age and can't retire at 55.

Most public sector workers don't retire at 55 either. Personally I wouldn't want to...

Muscle750

8 years in the final salary what upsets a lot of us in the private sector was we had no choice in us losing the final salary the public sector were left untouched and yet now the public sector pensions are been realised as unsubstainable with a reported £1.7 billion public sector pension liabilty

hyubh

Muscle750 wrote: »

8 years in the final salary

What happened when the FS scheme closed - in particular, assuming a DC scheme replaced it, what contribution rate does your employer pay? To be honest, if it isn't comparable to the effective rate of the old FS scheme, I'm not sure what police officer pensions has to do with it.

the public sector were left untouched

That's not true. Police and firefighter pensions (which you seem particularly bothered about) were changed in 2006 for new entrants, and are changing again (losing their final salary basis) next year. That said, are the reformed public sector DB schemes still pretty generous? For sure, but that's down to effective collective bargaining.

Thrugelmir

Muscle750 wrote: »

8 years in the final salary what upsets a lot of us in the private sector was we had no choice in us losing the final salary the public sector were left untouched and yet now the public sector pensions are been realised as unsubstainable with a reported £1.7 billion public sector pension liabilty

Public sector pensions are undergoing reform. Like you I feel aggrieved. So have made the best provision I can. Public Sector workers won't be receiving the new full state pension so there'll be many in for a shock. Particularly those that have retired at 55 recently.

chiefie

The lgps is a funded scheme that was reviewed in 2008 and again in 2014. The retirement date is now state pension age. It is now a career average scheme to stop the big wigs getting a massive bunce before they leave.

Having said that they are generous in todays standards but not by what there was 10 years ago. I moved from the private to public sector in 2002 and had to pay 50% more in pension contributions then.

The press and government are trying to create pressure on public pensions by getting those who aren't lucky enough to receive them to lobby to close them down. This will undoubtedly happen in the next 10 years i also think the government in 20 years will have to review the benefits and probably cut them. There isnt enough money in the pot cos most schemes dont have a pot.

As for state pensions they are unaffordable unless we allow immigration of younger people into the country - thats not a political statement just a matter of economics due to the ageing uk workforce.

So by all means be angry there is a lot to be angry about - but in the meantime save as much as you can for your old age. The massive corporations get away with paying little tax be angry about that too its a disgrace.:mad:

jamesd

Muscle750 wrote: »

I have to work till normal retiring age and can't retire at 55 .

You can retire whenever you like. All you have to do is arrange to have sufficient income, just as those not in final salary pensions must. There are limits based on how much you spend and how much you earn that limit just how far you can go but beyond those limits you probably have a lot of flexibility in deciding how much to invest for retirement and when to retire.

Muscle750 wrote: »

I understand that the fire service pensions are under scrutiny and many are unhappy about this.

The problem there is that the normal retirement age being used is unrealistic for the physical test requirements of the job. The aerobic fitness of the human body decreases with age and by the time normal retirement age is reached many firefighters will have been sacked for failing to meet the physical standards of the job, just because of that age-related change. So in practice many firefighters won't be able to get to NRA but will instead have to take reduced pensions early. This scheme really needs a normal retirement age that is consistent with the medical expertise about the physical standards required for the job. Either a decrease in age and keeping the standards or a relaxation of the standards and the same age.

chucknorris

Muscle750 wrote: »

I have no intention of taking any part of my pension at 55 yet I have to work till normal retiring age and can't retire at 55 .

I'm almost 57 and still working, I came out of early retirement to do my current job over 4 years ago, so like you are going to, I chose not to be retired, but everyone can retire early if they so desire, if they plan their finances accordingly.


I am now working in the public sector and yes the pension is generous, but I do pay enough tax to cover the cost of it, so I see it as a way of clawing back some of the tax I am paying.

kangoora

Well, for the military it's 22 years to get a 'full' pension and they don't accept anybody over the age of 28 (or thereabouts). Realistically, most military personnel join at or around 20 years old, making an 'almost' compulsory retirement age of 42 or so. You can be 'invited' to extend your service past the 22 year point but they are few and far between and tend to be restricted to Senior NCOs or very senior officers.

I have no problem with them getting a frozen pension after the 22 years service (at 60 it releases again for CPI increases) as, let's face it, a qualified mortar platoon leader or tank driver doesn't have too many job openings available in civvy street and they've given up their prime job development years in service to their country. You'll always get exceptions, I knew an ex-colonel working as an operations director for example, with pension and wage he must have been on a fortune (relative to me anyway).

dzug1

Muscle750 wrote: »

therefore to me and a lot of others there needs to be a radical overhaul of public sector pensions..

There seems to have been a radical overhaul of public sector pensions every few years for as long as I can remember - becoming more frequent as of late.

molerat

kangoora wrote: »

Well, for the military it's 22 years to get a 'full' pension and they don't accept anybody over the age of 28 (or thereabouts). Realistically, most military personnel join at or around 20 years old, making an 'almost' compulsory retirement age of 42 or so. You can be 'invited' to extend your service past the 22 year point but they are few and far between and tend to be restricted to Senior NCOs or very senior officers.

I have no problem with them getting a frozen pension after the 22 years service (at 60 it releases again for CPI increases) as, let's face it, a qualified mortar platoon leader or tank driver doesn't have too many job openings available in civvy street and they've given up their prime job development years in service to their country. You'll always get exceptions, I knew an ex-colonel working as an operations director for example, with pension and wage he must have been on a fortune (relative to me anyway).

A few incorrect assumptions / figures there