A quarter of a million staff opt out of NHS pension

crv1963

I've worked with so many people over the years including up to yesterday that say either "I never joined until too late because I didn't think I'd stay" or "I opted out after a while thinking I'd re-join after I'd paid off this or that" or "I thought 5% was a bit steep, didn't know what I was going to miss out on".

The reality is though I never knew what a good deal it was when I joined it, I took in good faith that the man telling my 21 year old self that I had to join and that he was retiring in 2 years time at 55, was a bargain, I thought 55 was old and 65 ancient, I now tell my 55 year old self that 55 is the new 45! And that old is 80 like my mothers age!

michaels

As a taxpayer I can only see a massive upside both short and long term from govt employees opting out of db pensions.

robin61

I can still remember a chap I started work with telling me he wouldn't be there long. That was over 40 years ago and when I checked earlier this year he was still there. "Short term" jobs turn into long term ones.

BobQ

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Ive got some sympathy with that argument, its not totally dud...…………..

No but in most cases it is dud. If a few % of your salary is so important you either need a clear plan(to use it) or are living beyond your means, when weighed against your future. Saying you do not need to plan for your future when for a few % of your salary your employer is contributing 15-20% of salary to your future is reckless. If you plan to leave in a couple years choose their DC option and still get a sizeable employer's contribution.

OldBeanz wrote: »

My niece (in-law) did not start one as she was going to set up her own practice. Never happened.

So she had no real plan just a vague aspiration and could have been benefiting from employer contributions…….

michaels wrote: »

As a taxpayer I can only see a massive upside both short and long term from govt employees opting out of db pensions.

Absolutely, but if these same employees eventually retire and claim benefits in retirement not only are they poor but they are also costing the government more in the future.

Alexland

BobQ wrote: »

Absolutely, but if these same employees eventually retire and claim benefits in retirement not only are they poor but they are also costing the government more in the future.

Well as taxpayers let's hope everyone else only does a little bit of pension saving so they only accumulate enough income to keep then off benefits. Oh yes auto-enrollment...

Alex

andy001

Flat rate tax relief in budget , would mean more people will leave NHS pension. Unintended consequences!

chucknorris

fred246 wrote: »

I sense a sort of change in 20 to 30 year olds. I used to say "work hard. Pay into your pension. Retire early." The young people now are saying that retirement isn't something that's going to happen for them. Take it easy. Don't work too hard. It's a long way to go. You will always work and never retire. If you'll never retire a pension isn't necessary.

I used to often have these types of arguments/discussions with my friends when we were 18 to 20. Not because of pensions, but because I was working full time and running a business which took up a lot of my spare time. They believed that enjoying yourself was a priority when you are young, because you could work hard later. I had the opposite opinion, when I was younger, I believed that I could both work hard and play hard, and that it would also set me up to have a better life when I was older. I'm 60 now, I work one day per week, I don't have to, but I like my job, and I didn't want to fully retire. Although I am thinking about retiring soon, because although I like my job, there are other things that I like better, and I have been trying to work out if I carry on because I can't let go. I probably can't realistically spend the money that I earn, because I already have more than enough. I keep going around in circles when I try and make a decision.

fred246

I was talking to someone who was wanting to recruit an IT specialist. They were offering £50k a year full time. The only guy with the necessary qualifications said "I'm a surfer. Pay me £40k a year for a 4 day week. I want to surf on a Friday." They weren't sure whether to give him the job. And then I read this article:
https://www.gponline.com/vast-majority-gp-trainees-not-plan-work-full-time-survey-reveals/article/1490660
At the risk of sounding sexist I would have expected most male GPs to want full-time work.
As the state pension age gets closer to average age of death (which is quite low in some areas and social classes) then people don't see retirement as a part of their life. Maybe they then say "OK I'll never retire. Let's have more leisure time now."

EdSwippet

fred246 wrote: »

... people don't see retirement as a part of their life. Maybe they then say "OK I'll never retire. Let's have more leisure time now."

I am over age 55 with a decently sized pension pot and no longer working, but If I had my time over again I would do the same.

The government moves the pension saving goalposts at every budget, and has turned 'retirement planning' into an oxymoron. And with steeply progressive tax rates that trigger at relatively low (and not inflation-adjusted) levels, even an average wage of £25k or so spread over two years in half-time work will be worth more to an employee than the same amount earned in one full-time year and then nothing in the second. The effect is more pronounced in higher rate tax, and dramatic once you encounter the appalling effective 60% rate above £100k.

Working fewer hours per week but for more years overall is a completely rational response to an irrational -- not to mention, unstable -- system.

ex-pat_scot

fred246 wrote: »

The only guy with the necessary qualifications said "I'm a surfer. Pay me £40k a year for a 4 day week. I want to surf on a Friday." They weren't sure whether to give him the job. And then I read this article:
https://www.gponline.com/vast-majority-gp-trainees-not-plan-work-full-time-survey-reveals/article/1490660
At the risk of sounding sexist I would have expected most male GPs to want full-time work.

I know lots of GPs and medical consultants. I don't know any that work 5 days - they all work 4 days. Partly it's a recognition that the workload is simply too much - particularly where the GPs are running their own practice.


I earn roughly £125,000 pa.
That's nice and in line with my peers in the very specialist end of my profession.
Those of us who are still contributing to a pension are throwing everything into pension contribution, to get the taxable earnings down to £100,000.
Those who cannot (LTA) are reducing their working hours to bring the taxable earnings down to £100,000.


It links to the "flat rate" thread and other possibilities around reducing LTA / raising the access age to personal pensions etc.
If I can no longer keep contributing to the pension tax-efficiently, and have to suffer a punitive 62% / 67% marginal tax rate on earnings above £100,000 then I will prioritise my sanity, health and family time. I will work 4 days for £100,000 instead.


I do not see that working the fifth day, and taking home 1/3 of the money I earn for that extra work, is worthwhile (or fair and equitable), and am fortunate enough that my employer can and will allow this if I request.