The Hard Life of the Defined-Benefit Scheme Member

Alexland

lisboa84 wrote: »

Am I missing something, or does it seem like from the company's point of view, it's a poor financial decision to promote someone who is due to retire in one year and pay them an increase in salary, which is effectively going to cost that company for the next 30 years in increased final salary pension pay-outs.

Does the manager awarding the promotion or pay rise care about the impact on the pension liability? Probably not as in most companies pay planning and pension management are not joined up.

Alex

GibbsRule_No3

lisboa84 wrote: »

Am I missing something, or does it seem like from the company's point of view, it's a poor financial decision to promote someone who is due to retire in one year and pay them an increase in salary, which is effectively going to cost that company for the next 30 years in increased final salary pension pay-outs.

Age discrimination if he/she is the right person for the promotion and is not given the job. Also unless they have put in their retirement letter, there is no retirement age anymore. Probably easier not employing some one older and getting away with it but it sounds like this person is in situ.

Paul_Herring

lisboa84 wrote: »

Am I missing something, or does it seem like from the company's point of view, it's a poor financial decision to promote someone who is due to retire in one year and pay them an increase in salary, which is effectively going to cost that company for the next 30 years in increased final salary pension pay-outs.

There's the presumption in there that the company know that their employee is skedaddling off in 12 months...

System

Not only is it the public sector that are paying these amounts into their pensions us in the private sector are as well yet we get nothing from them paid into ours

System

As soon as they started looking at public sector pensions why do you think they all kicked off ,we had ours pulled from under our feet with next to no notice

Peelerfart

Please, not another private Vs public debate.

They end pointlessly

jamesd

FatherAbraham wrote: »

the more pressing existential question of having enough money to enjoy retirement gets in the way. ... I expect Dr Maslow had something to say about this.

There can come times when you have minimally sufficient, then clearly sufficient but have not yet reached an aspired to level such that you choose to retire. At the later stages of this you can be quite relaxed about less work by choice or illness. I expect that Maslow would recognise these distinctions.

DT2001

Peelerfart wrote: »

Please, not another private Vs public debate.

They end pointlessly

(Tongue in cheek) no mention of us, the self employed, who only have themselves contributing.

I agree a pointless argument, on the whole we chose our jobs/careers probably with little thought about pensions.

Peelerfart

DT2001 wrote: »

(Tongue in cheek) no mention of us, the self employed, who only have themselves contributing.

I agree a pointless argument, on the whole we chose our jobs/careers probably with little thought about pensions.

A great point from an often under valued and worthy sector.

GunJack

DT2001 wrote: »

(Tongue in cheek) no mention of us, the self employed, who only have themselves contributing.

I agree a pointless argument, on the whole we chose our jobs/careers probably with little thought about pensions.

Not strictly true...tax relief?? And the ability to offset allsorts of expenses against tax??