Public Sector Pension Reform In Trouble?

Silvertabby

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Having all the current staffs staying in their more generous pension scheme is likely to cost more after all.

Not always. When the LGPS switched to CARE those over a certain age had an 'underpin'. ie, calculations were done under both schemes, (final salary only, or final salary plus care) and the highest amount paid. Only 2% were better off under final salary only.

Yes, this may change over the years - but someone on a lower than average salary, with lots of non-contractual extras, who is happy to plod on in the same job for all of their career, would almost certainly be better off under CARE.

Final Salary: Accrual rate of 1/60th of final salary (excluding overtime and most other non-contractual extra).

CARE: Accrual rate of 1/49th of actual annual salary (including overtime etc) plus CPI revaluation of all pension in 'the pot'.

JoeCrystal

Silvertabby wrote: »

Not always. When the LGPS switched to CARE those over a certain age had an 'underpin'. ie, calculations were done under both schemes, (final salary only, or final salary plus care) and the highest amount paid. Only 2% were better off under final salary only.

Yes, this may change over the years - but someone on a lower than average salary, with lots of non-contractual extras, who is happy to plod on in the same job for all of their career, would almost certainly be better off under CARE.

Final Salary: Accrual rate of 1/60th of final salary (excluding overtime and most other non-contractual extra).

CARE: Accrual rate of 1/49th of actual annual salary (including overtime etc) plus CPI revaluation of all pension in 'the pot'.

I take it back. Either option will always be going to be expensive in the end! :rotfl:

GunJack

Even worse in PCSPS, accrual rate of 1/80th final salary (but auto lump sum)...

edit - with the earned pension in a CARE being upped by cpi or cpi+ year-on-year, that's also better than a salary increasing by less than inflation year-on-year

westv

GunJack wrote: »

Even worse in PCSPS, accrual rate of 1/80th final salary (but auto lump sum)...

CSPS Classic is 1/80th too.

crv1963

The 1995 nhs is also 1/80th too, maximum possible accrual is 45/80 with auto lump sum.

Durban

Silvertabby wrote: »

Not always. When the LGPS switched to CARE those over a certain age had an 'underpin'. ie, calculations were done under both schemes, (final salary only, or final salary plus care) and the highest amount paid. Only 2% were better off under final salary only.

Yes, this may change over the years - but someone on a lower than average salary, with lots of non-contractual extras, who is happy to plod on in the same job for all of their career, would almost certainly be better off under CARE.

Final Salary: Accrual rate of 1/60th of final salary (excluding overtime and most other non-contractual extra).

CARE: Accrual rate of 1/49th of actual annual salary (including overtime etc) plus CPI revaluation of all pension in 'the pot'.

I have worked part time and have done for the past 19 years and pay into the LGPS. I am happy to plod on in my fairly well paid job with no aspirations for promotion.

Accrual is now 1/49 with no automatic lump sum and I pay as much as I can afford into the LGPS AVC's so that I can use that for my lump sum

I do loads of overtime and my pension will be far better under the CARE scheme.

sammyjammy

GunJack wrote: »

All of this could have been easily avoided if current staff stayed on their existing pensions, but all new starters after a set date joined the new schemes...but far too simplistic for politicos I suppose...

Its what they did when they closed Classic to new members and introduced NUVOS and Partnership. This time they got greedy and didn't do their due diligence as they rushed it in. Karma and we all get to pay for it!

sammyjammy

Durban wrote: »

I have worked part time and have done for the past 19 years and pay into the LGPS. I am happy to plod on in my fairly well paid job with no aspirations for promotion.

I do loads of overtime and my pension will be far better under the CARE scheme.

Even if you lose out on 7 years of money and have to wait another 7 years to retire?

Time is worth more to me than money!

Durban

sammyjammy wrote: »

Even if you lose out on 7 years of money and have to wait another 7 years to retire?

Time is worth more to me than money!

.

I don't lose out at all. My NRA was 65 under the final salary scheme and is 67 now.

As my overtime is now pensionable , it appears that I will be able to retire at 65 on more , even with the reductions , than I would have done under the old final salary system.

Oliver1191

Has the Government indicated an eta for correcting this error?

Or is it the case with a general election looming, they'll pass the buck?