NHS pension - do widowers really lose out

BobQ

TARDIS wrote: »

The BMA challenged this, but lost. The main argument from the government seemed to be if they allowed this change in the NHS scheme they would need to allow it across other public sector schemes and they can't afford the extra £4bn it would cost..

A valid reason. Why should those who not contributed as much get thesame as those that do? There is not a bottomless pit of money to pay pensions.

Interestingly they have made the change equalising women's rights in a small number of schemes, including one which affects MPs

For the future they have. Where have they applied this retrospectively?

Silvertabby

For the future they have. Where have they applied this retrospectively? Posted by BobQ

The LGPS, subject to Ts&Cs - ie, dates of service and if marriage was pre or post retirement.

Pre 1988 = no widower's pensions.

1988 to 1997 = accrual of widower's pensions, but only post 1988 service counted - unless pension member opted to pay additional pension contributions.

1997 = widower's pensions entitlement backdated to first date of pre 1988 service - but member must have been an active/contributing member of the scheme on the date the rules changed. The changes were not made retrospective for retired/deferred members.

Of course, the big difference between the LGPS and the rest of the public sector pensions is that the LGPS is a funded scheme, unlike the NHS, Civil Service, etc etc.

xylophone

LGPS is a funded scheme, unlike the NHS, Civil Service, etc etc.

Or indeed the Armed Forces....... (which was non contrib too.....):D

Ex Armed Forces? Mr S and I have been in receipt of our pensions since we were 47/44 respectively.

Silvertabby

Or indeed the Armed Forces....... (which was non contrib too.....):D Posted by xylophone

“ Ex Armed Forces? Mr S and I have been in receipt of our pensions since we were 47/44 respectively.

Not quite non-contributory - the Armed Forces salary is reduced instead. In our day the reduction was 9%.

Yes, the Armed Forces pension is more generous than most - but look at what we were willing to give up when we signed on the dotted line. The NHS/Civil Service/Local Government etc don't expect quite such a commitment!

Save
Save
Save
Save
Save

greatkingrat

zagfles wrote: »

There was a case recently where a gay man went to the supreme court and won equal pension rights for his spouse, and there was a lot of talk of the implications of this judgement on schemes which treat widows and widowers differently, as it's exactly the same principle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/12/man-wins-equal-pension-rights-for-husband-at-supreme-court

https://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Europe/UK-Corporate-and-Trustee-Briefing/2017/08/Pensions-for-same-sex-spouses

The difference is that all men would have paid full contributions, whether they were single, married to a woman, or married to a man.

Presumably any lesbian couple would also only get widowers benefits back to 1988

xylophone

The NHS/Civil Service/Local Government etc don't expect quite such a commitment!

Indeed - a soldier's contract is written in blood you might say.

kidmugsy

Silvertabby wrote: »

Not quite non-contributory - the Armed Forces salary is reduced instead

Just as a matter of economics that will be true of all non-contributory pensions whether or not there's any formal statement to that effect. Fussing about whether a pension is contributory or non-contributory is an obsession for dunces, unless it's just a matter of someone trying to clarify what his income will be before he accepts a new job.

Silvertabby

“ Not quite non-contributory - the Armed Forces salary is reduced instead
Originally posted by Silvertabby ”

Just as a matter of economics that will be true of all non-contributory pensions whether or not there's any formal statement to that effect. Fussing about whether a pension is contributory or non-contributory is an obsession for dunces, unless it's just a matter of someone trying to clarify what his income will be before he accepts a new job. Posted by kidsmugsy

I didn't join the WRAF for the pension scheme. Although, of course, I appreciate it now!

BobQ

Silvertabby wrote: »

Of course, the big difference between the LGPS and the rest of the public sector pensions is that the LGPS is a funded scheme, unlike the NHS, Civil Service, etc etc.

Which is irrelevant to this issue.

The employer for an unfunded scheme simply chooses not to have a fund. They still apply actuarial principles and calculations to compute the liabilities, and cannot just pay out more in pensions than they have calculated the contributions will sustain. Those contributions include actual deductions or employer contributions.

The LGPS does have a fund as you say, so it cannot pay out more in pensions than employers/employees have contributed. To do so would be a breach of trust.