Employee/Employer contribution LGPS

bigadaj

GunJack wrote: »

OK, I'll bite....

when I came out of the CS into "industry" I got a 22% pay rise and enrolled into a DB pension with similar benefits (actually better, death in service is 4x salary, was only 3x in CS).... so my CS salary was way under the "going rate", my pension was not quite so good, so stop moaning about public sector schemes when they (and the salaries) are often inferior to those in Industry

When was that?

JoeCrystal

Acquinas wrote: »

Why have they not followed the logic of their own argument and got themselves one of these gold-plated jobs themselves? It would be uncharitable to suggest it could be that they may possibly not possess the basic skills, knowledge etc I suppose. Or is it that, deep down, while they love to whinge, the bottom line is that public service jobs are, in the main, paid under the market rate for someone with the same skills set and they would prefer to stay in the corporate sector where the expense accounts, fully-expensed cars, big bonuses and tax dodges make the unfairness a bit more tolerable?

Speaking as someone on average salary who do not get any of these mythical corporate benefits.. :rotfl: It is actually my intention that once I paid my home off, I will start looking for a job with better pension provision (ideally DB pension) that will give me more certainty in pension provision in either public or private sectors.

marlot

JoeCrystal wrote: »

I'll bite

I am shocked that these lucky folks with the DB pension scheme are paying peanuts for such a generous and knowing exactly how much they are getting when they retire later in life...

I'll bite!

I train graduates and apprentices in the civil service, and I make sure they are aware of the deal they get - indeed it's an explicit module on my courses!

I took a near 50% pay cut to join a government agency, and have had no pay rises in the last 4 years. Given that I value my pension at about 30% of my earnings, and a have better work/home life it was the right choice for me at this stage of my career [last job before retirement].

I observe that some roles in the civil service pay well relative to the private sector, and some very poorly. Since January, we've advertised about 40 roles, and very few private sector applicants.

GunJack

bigadaj wrote: »

When was that?

2007, so my Industry % pay rises have been worth more y-o-y, and my Industry DB scheme only converted to career average this year, so again, well ahead (on financial terms for me) of my CS earnings & pension

Don't get me wrong, having 19 yrs of deferred Classic waiting for me in 11 year's time is very nice to have, but the way it's looking with the low annual revaluations means the SP by the time I get there may be the biggest of the three pension funds I have.....

...but I won't have to live on cheese butties when I retire

edit:- 19 not 20 yrs deferred CS Classic

Acquinas

Whilst I appreciate that the perpetuation of this discussion will be of precious little use to the OP, the fact is that the marketisation of public education is "a thing". Increase in LGPS contribution rates for staff in education at least are the result of actuaries correctly concluding that the risk in acads and free schools is inherently higher than the equivalent risk pertaining to LA schools. We can argue over whether or not LGPS is "expensive" or "well-funded" but the fact is that there are incrementally higher costs associated with the risk associated with pensions for staff in this new breed of schools. The Maoists running education reform in England have however only taken the first steps required to fully marketise things. They have broken up the LAs that provided for pooled risk and continuity of funding and replaced that with an atomised system where schools can actually go into administration because there is no lender of last resort and put in place contracts (funding agreements) that, seemingly, can be torn up on a whim. What they have not done - and let's face it, don't have the guts to do - is to tear up TUPE protection for school staff transferring over. So all of the risk and none of the reward. No wonder LGPS actuaries are taking the logical necessary action to protect their funds.

hyubh

Acquinas wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate that the perpetuation of this discussion will be of precious little use to the OP, the fact is that the marketisation of public education is "a thing".

Replacing local with central funding is not 'marketisation'. In fact, Michael Gove is a strong supporter of state schooling and advocates taxing private schools to help fund them - he just has a strong distaste (don't share it myself) for LEAs.

Increase in LGPS contribution rates for staff in education at least are the result of actuaries correctly concluding that the risk in acads and free schools is inherently higher than the equivalent risk pertaining to LA schools.

And central government has decreed this cannot in fact be taken account of, as previously noted.

We can argue over whether or not LGPS is "expensive"

Erm, it *is* expensive.

The Maoists running education reform in England have however only taken the first steps required to fully marketise things. They have broken up the LAs that provided for pooled risk and continuity of funding and replaced that with an atomised system where schools can actually go into administration because there is no lender of last resort and put in place contracts (funding agreements) that, seemingly, can be torn up on a whim. What they have not done - and let's face it, don't have the guts to do - is to tear up TUPE protection for school staff transferring over. So all of the risk and none of the reward. No wonder LGPS actuaries are taking the logical necessary action to protect their funds.

Setting employer rates in the LGPS isn't a matter of war and peace, but a technical matter.

Acquinas

The centralisation of funding is not at the heart of marketisation. That was put in place to undermine local accountability. Marketisation comes from disrupting the system that sensibly tried to match supply with demand and handing over public monies to sharks who can pay themselves and their cronies big salaries and big contracts to firms run by themselves and their old pals.

By the way, I totally agree that the increase in the LGPS contribution is a technical matter. Its the result of risk analysis that sensible people like actuaries have taken. Its just that they have drawn the conclusions they have because of the results of the dogmatic attack on local accountability by Gove and co. over the last decade or so. Just because Canute says that the tide cannot come in does not mean it won't. It has.

MPD

If an academy withdraws from the LGPS it is required to pay up all future liabilities at that point. The LGPS is expensive and the academy generally cannot afford the charge.

hyubh

MPD wrote: »

If an academy withdraws from the LGPS it is required to pay up all future liabilities at that point. The LGPS is expensive and the academy generally cannot afford the charge.

Academies are centrally funded, and do not have a choice but to participate in the LGPS...

MPD

Some of the jobs I've seen offered DC pensions, they must have been in the independent sector.

I (wrongly) assumed this would be one of the cost savings used to make academisation an attractive option.