public sector pensions

woolly_wombat

chiefie wrote: »

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:

All true chiefie, but no politician will ever dare to admit it!

WW

kidmugsy

chiefie wrote: »

The massive corporations get away with paying little tax be angry about that too its a disgrace.:mad:

Not only a disgrace, but quite often entirely fictional too.

Nual

Police and Fire Officers and Mental Health Nurses ( the groups I know about)have had a retirement age of 55 for a long time. The theory is that they need to retire earlier than others because they need to be physically fit. In practice, many of them are not front line and fitness is irrelevant, they have the same sort of desk jobs as anyone working in the public sector.

I worked for a while with someone doing the same job as me. She had qualified as a mental health nurse, we were both doing the same policy work, but she had kept her registration up so she could go on full pension at 55.

My sister in law is a mental health nurse. She is retiring in January on a full pension then will do bank work for the same organisation.

I learned recently from a very senior fire service Commissioner ( or was it General??)that 95% of their activity is prevention and only 5% is responding to emergency situations including car accidents as well as fires. Inspections to put smoke alarms in older peoples homes, talks in schools, etc etc. You dont need to be fit to do this sort of thing, and you dont need to dont need to be an active fireman.

Moving people over to desk jobs as they become older has always been the way to go in the police. Keeping the requirement for quasi military fitness for all is the daft bit.

The public sector is massively diverse in its terms and conditions and pension arrangements. Some groups do very well, police, fire service, civil service and mental health nurses among them. Local government workers, in their fully funded scheme, are bottom of the pile. Teachers, who can retire at 60 on better pensions, are on different , more generous rules again. This needs to be more widely understood.

I am in favour of better pensions for everyone, rather than a race to the bottom. However, it is a bit galling to be seconded to a partner organisation in these times of integrated working and discover not only are your co-workers paid 20% more than you, but they can retire 5 years earlier on a better pension

chiefie

Nual wrote: »

Police and Fire Officers and Mental Health Nurses ( the groups I know about)have had a retirement age of 55 for a long time. The theory is that they need to retire earlier than others because they need to be physically fit. In practice, many of them are not front line and fitness is irrelevant, they have the same sort of desk jobs as anyone working in the public sector.

I worked for a while with someone doing the same job as me. She had qualified as a mental health nurse, we were both doing the same policy work, but she had kept her registration up so she could go on full pension at 55.

My sister in law is a mental health nurse. She is retiring in January on a full pension then will do bank work for the same organisation.

I learned recently from a very senior fire service Commissioner ( or was it General??)that 95% of their activity is prevention and only 5% is responding to emergency situations including car accidents as well as fires. Inspections to put smoke alarms in older peoples homes, talks in schools, etc etc. You dont need to be fit to do this sort of thing, and you dont need to dont need to be an active fireman.

Moving people over to desk jobs as they become older has always been the way to go in the police. Keeping the requirement for quasi military fitness for all is the daft bit.

The public sector is massively diverse in its terms and conditions and pension arrangements. Some groups do very well, police, fire service, civil service and mental health nurses among them. Local government workers, in their fully funded scheme, are bottom of the pile. Teachers, who can retire at 60 on better pensions, are on different , more generous rules again. This needs to be more widely understood.

I am in favour of better pensions for everyone, rather than a race to the bottom. However, it is a bit galling to be seconded to a partner organisation in these times of integrated working and discover not only are your co-workers paid 20% more than you, but they can retire 5 years earlier on a better pension

Well i certainly hope i get a fit and healthy fireman, police officer or mental health nurse in my hour of need ! They may well spend lots of time not answering emergencies but they have to be trained for it and ready in the same way our armed forces do. God bless em all i say :T

green_man

My wife is in the police, it is undoubtedly a very good scheme, but remember there are pretty big contributions. My wife currently pays nearly 15% of her salary to the police final salary scheme, this is much more than most local government or teachers schemes.

chucknorris

green_man wrote: »

My wife is in the police, it is undoubtedly a very good scheme, but remember there are pretty big contributions. My wife currently pays nearly 15% of her salary to the police final salary scheme, this is much more than most local government or teachers schemes.

My contribution is 11% to the teachers pension fund, but in addition to that I have also been paying an extra £24,326 per annum buying additional pension for the last 3 years. Unfortunately they won't allow me to buy more, so I also top in my SIPP in addition to that.


EDIT: It looks like my contribution will fall to 10.2% next year, as they are introducing a new sub £54.999k salary band,

green_man

chucknorris wrote: »

My contribution is 11% to the teachers pension fund, but in addition to that I have also been paying an extra £24,326 per annum buying additional pension for the last 3 years. Unfortunately they won't allow me to buy more, so I also top in my SIPP in addition to that.
,

You may be contributing that now but I suspect you have only been contributing that this year, before that it was 6.4% I believe. Point being the Police have paid much more than most public sector workers in order to fund their (very generous) pensions. Obviously AVCs are a whole other issue.

chucknorris

green_man wrote: »

You may be contributing that now but I suspect you have only been contributing that this year, before that it was 6.4% I believe. Point being the Police have paid much more than most public sector workers in order to fund their (very generous) pensions. Obviously AVCs are a whole other issue.

Your suspicions are unfounded and you are wrong, last year I was paying 10.1% and the year before that I think it was 8.6%, you have to go back to the year before that when it was 6.4%. I get the idea that you think I am somehow against you, I'm not, I am merely stating what I am paying, it isn't a race to the bottom you know, I don't begrudge the police their pension.


Also they are not AVC's, AVC's are different and paid into a fund run by the Prudential, in the TPS you can also buy additional pension (as well as AVC's).


EDIT: I didn't really value pensions at all until I had a rethink a few years ago, when I realised that they are a good hedge against living longer than expected, which would allow me to spend capital in retirement faster than otherwise. Although I realised that too late to make any real difference as I will probably retire next year and wait until 65 and 66 to draw my pension which will only be about £25k. Unfortunately most of my income is not eligible for pension tax relief (unearned income), and in any case the annual allowance is now only £40k anyway. Of course now that they have relaxed the rules, pensions are even more attractive than they previously were.

jem16

Nual wrote: »

Local government workers, in their fully funded scheme, are bottom of the pile.Teachers, who can retire at 60 on better pensions, are on different , more generous rules again. This needs to be more widely understood.

It also needs to be more widely understood that teachers joining since 2006 have been on a NRA of 65. With the LGPS many could retire at age 60 if they fulfilled the Rule of 85.

As to more generous I'm not sure where. Both the LGPS and TPS were 1/80ths schemes with automatic lump sum and both changed to 1/60ths schemes with no automatic lump sum.

I am in favour of better pensions for everyone, rather than a race to the bottom. However, it is a bit galling to be seconded to a partner organisation in these times of integrated working and discover not only are your co-workers paid 20% more than you, but they can retire 5 years earlier on a better pension

If the job was the same you would be paid the same. For example a teacher is doing a vastly different job to a classroom assistant in Scotland. Both are now on the same retiral age of 65 and a teacher will have paid much more into the pension that the classroom assistant so why would they expect to have the same pension?

jackyann

NHS "special classes" were abolished in 1995. That was the system that allowed nurses, midwives, health visitors & mental health officers to retire at 55.
That scheme was 1/80 of final salary for every year paid in, up to 40 (ie: half). So if you became a nurse at 18 (as was common then) and retired at 55 with no breaks, you got 37/80 of your pension. To get the maximum you had to work until 58.
It was thought that it was both a physically & mentally demanding job, hence the earlier retirement.
Although there are still a number of nurses who can claim "special class", that scheme hasn't admitted anyone for almost 20 years.
There have been a number of changes since, and the current scheme is not final salary, and doesn't pay out until state retirement age.