Local Government Pension Scheme

rush1884

Thanks for the responses, very helpful. Yes my original post meant that £30,000 was being earned now and 25 years service starting from now rather than previous employment.


Thanks again.

will1am3

Thanks for your responses

MARTYM8`

Just as a follow up you would be mad not to stay in the LGPS - particularly if you have a wife/husband and family.

You have a guaranteed inflation linked pension for life (i.e. not subject to stock market volality), life insurance, ill health retirement benefits, survivor benefits for your family if you die before (or in) retirement.

It may look like it costs a lot - but its worth it.

System

Hi

The cost is very very small;

Look on the high street for...

Ill health cover
Death Benefits
Child benefits
Pension rights for partner
Index Linked pension

and it would cost 10x the amount the LGPS require from you.

daveyjp

A friend is semi retired from Local Govt, but he had to wait until 60.

He 'retired' at 60 and took his pension, he now works 2.5 days a week and on retirement at 65 will get another pension payment.

chiefie

rush1884 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses, very helpful. Yes my original post meant that £30,000 was being earned now and 25 years service starting from now rather than previous employment.


Thanks again.

Just a slight word of caution if you are planning for the future. It is an excellent and funded scheme but many are as underfunded as many private sectors schemes (each of scheme had their triennial valuation last year). They changed the rules in 2008 and again in 2014 so expect things to change again before the end of the decade. Local government is shedding workers and they are now paying out more in pensions than they get in. Many employers are paying 20% + in contributions and with expected further funding cuts they will not be able to afford to increase payments further after the next valuation. Boris has already touted brInging all local government schemes into one pot (to save on administration fees) but the cynic in me is thinking that the government will want to access this money to fund infrastructure projects in the future.

All in all though just be happy that she is in it as its one of the best schemes left :T

kidmugsy

chiefie wrote: »

Boris has already touted brInging all local government schemes into one pot (to save on administration fees)

Is that so that provincial schemes can subsidise London ones?

chiefie

kidmugsy wrote: »

Is that so that provincial schemes can subsidise London ones?

My guess is that if he doesn't get to replace Cameron he will try and make London independent from the UK !

MARTYM8`

kidmugsy wrote: »

Is that so that provincial schemes can subsidise London ones?

In London there are 33 different local authority pension funds - plus the London wide LPFA which looks after the Mayor's functions and old GLC/ILEA pensions.

In most of the rest of England pension funds are operated on a county wide basis or sub regionally in the metropolitan districts.

So the London set up is unusual - in having so many funds.

The one advantage of separate funds is that when you move employer you can leave your benefits with the old employer as deferred benefits. So it gives you more options - particularly if your new job pays less and most of your pension is pre 2014 final salary based.

hyubh

chiefie wrote: »

(each of scheme had their triennial valuation last year).

Minor quibble, but the last one was in 2013, making the next one 2016.

Local government is shedding workers and they are now paying out more in pensions than they get in.

That's what the pension funds are for, one would hope...!

Many employers are paying 20% + in contributions and with expected further funding cuts they will not be able to afford to increase payments further after the next valuation.

They will have to pay the rates that the actuaries come up with - usually the '20%+' aspect comes from when employer rates were well under less than half that, i.e. it's trying to make up lost ground.

Boris has already touted brInging all local government schemes into one pot (to save on administration fees) but the cynic in me is thinking that the government will want to access this money to fund infrastructure projects in the future.

If you're talking about the Telegraph piece I think you are, that's what Boris Johnson was actually calling for:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11142293/A-Citizens-Wealth-Fund-would-create-billions-for-investment.html

Notice in the process he manages to confuse how many (all?) the non-LGPS schemes he listed or alluded to are trustee not statutory ones, and as such, would require the government to take over and nationalise them first...