Local Government Pension Scheme

Rich2808

Silvertabby wrote: »

I was replying to Rich2808, who thought it was a shame he couldn't leave his pension to a friend !

I think my point was you pay exactly the same contributions at the same rate whether you are single or married/in a civil partnership - and there is no opt out option.

The government no longer has this in place for new state pensions - so why should single people be forced to pay for this in a private or public sector pension. You want survivor benefits - you pay more - you wish to opt out you pay lower contributions? I merely say make it optional.

Silvertabby

Rich2808 wrote: »

I think my point was you pay exactly the same contributions at the same rate whether you are single or married/in a civil partnership - and there is no opt out option.

The government no longer has this in place for new state pensions - so why should single people be forced to pay for this in a private or public sector pension. You want survivor benefits - you pay more - you wish to opt out you pay lower contributions? I merely say make it optional.

Only in DB schemes, and they are getting fewer by the day. If you are that set against how these schemes are run, and if you are sure that you will never take advantage of all the benefits offered, then you do have a choice - opt out in favour of a private pension/SIPP. That way, all the money is yours to do with what you like.

Rich2808

Silvertabby wrote: »

Ummm - I don't think the idea of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples means that any two people, regardless of relationship status, can form a partnership just to access pension benefits.

Would you also deny pension benefits to people who marry for money?

I really don't see the issue - if you have paid for partner benefits why shouldn't you have the ability to share them with a person of your choice. Is arranging a civil partnership with your long term carer (and friend) to facilitiate this worse than your pension being left to a spouse who may have walked out on you years ago but you never divorced?

Silvertabby

Rich2808 wrote: »

Would you also deny pension benefits to people who marry for money?

I really don't see the issue - if you have paid for partner benefits why shouldn't you have the ability to share them with a person of your choice. Is arranging a civil partnership with your long term carer (and friend) to facilitiate this worse than your pension being left to a spouse who may have walked out on you years ago but you never divorced?

One word, four letters. Cost.

DB pensions are barely affordable as it is - extending the entitlement to survivor's pensions would mean increased employer and employee contributions and, very likely, a lower accrual rate. If anything, I can see DB pensions going the same way as the State pension in the years to come - no survivor benefits at all, as that person will/should have their own pension provision.

As for marrying for money, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme only pays survivor benefits in the event of a 'death bed marriage' on production of proof that the couple had been in a long term relationship.

GDB2222

kidmugsy wrote: »

Best mate? Will nobody think of the grandchildren?

Wouldn't the scheme end up paying them for the next 80-100 years? Just how much is this pension scheme supposed to cost?

Silvertabby

!!!8220; Best mate? Will nobody think of the grandchildren?
Originally posted by kidmugsy

GDB2222 wrote: »

Wouldn't the scheme end up paying them for the next 80-100 years? Just how much is this pension scheme supposed to cost?

Exactly. DB schemes are greatly misunderstood - especially this idea that single people have 'paid' for survivor's pensions, and so should be able to leave them to anyone they want.

In ball park figures, a typical DB scheme member will get back ALL of their own contributions in their first 5 to 10 years of retirement (5 years if they take a cash lump sum, 10 years if they don't), then the scheme pays their pension for the rest of their lives - and for any eligible dependants.

In very simplistic terms, the number crunchers ( the scheme actuaries) balance the employer and employee contribution rates and the the scheme accrual rate against future liabilities. That means they have already factored in that not every pensioner will leave a widow/widower/partner. If they did have to factor in survivor's pensions for everyone, then the contribution rates would go up and the accrual rate would go down.

Granting survivor's pensions to unmarried, co-habiting, partners is a relatively new thing in pension terms, but seemingly didn't need must of an adjustment because 20 years ago these people would more than likely be married rather than just living together, and so were already factored in the future liabilities calculations.

No doubt there will someone out there who will be willing to take this to the Courts, on the basis that 'not being able to leave their pension to their great grandchild is a breach of their human rights' - but they need to be careful what they wish for. A move like that would be the final death blow for DB pensions.

kidmugsy

GDB2222 wrote: »

Wouldn't the scheme end up paying them for the next 80-100 years? Just how much is this pension scheme supposed to cost?

Thank you for explaining my joke to me.

Triumph13

GDB2222 wrote: »

Wouldn't the scheme end up paying them for the next 80-100 years? Just how much is this pension scheme supposed to cost?

And then some. There is still one 'dependent child' collecting a US military pension re service in the civil war.

Silvertabby

Wouldn't the scheme end up paying them for the next 80-100 years? Just how much is this pension scheme supposed to cost?
Originally posted by GDB2222

And then some. There is still one 'dependent child' collecting a US military pension re service in the civil war. Posted by Triumph13

152 Years Later, The VA Is Still Paying Out A Pension From The Civil War
The Department of Veterans Affairs cuts a pension check check every month for $73.13 to Irene Triplett, an 87-year-old who lives in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Why? Because she is the living daughter of a Civil War veteran.
Though he fought in the war more than 152 years ago, Confederate-turned-Union soldier Moses Triplett didn't father Irene until his second marriage, when he was 84 years old. He died in 1938, at age 92. Her mother, Elida, was 50 years his junior, and died in 1967, which Wall Street Journal first reported in 2014. Triplett is the only person left still collecting a Civil War pension, which she receives as a result of Title 38 under the United States Code. The law says that all surviving spouses and children whose parents fought in the Civil War can continue receiving their loved one's benefits payments.
Triplett currently resides in a nursing home, and the VA confirmed she does in fact receive the monthly amount, which would have been worth $1,269.59 the year her father died, according to inflation rates. She will continue to do so until she passes, the last remaining recipient of the pension.

Trust me, the LGPS really can't afford to do that !

GDB2222

kidmugsy wrote: »

Thank you for explaining my joke to me.

My mistake. I thought you were the OP.