Why do posters here have disproportionately higher than average pension funds...

crv1963

doris540 said:

Friend of mine who works at The Home office in London is working from home on full pay, They said their work load equates to a max of 2 hours a day and that theyve been told they wont be back in the office until at least next March. The public sector wont see massive job losses over the forthcoming months either. Many in the private sector will see their jobs go and in turn their pensions  grind to a halt along with a bleak outlook. Just remember those that are furloughed in The Public sector which in proportion to The Private sector is minimal are still getting a far higher percentage paid into their pensions by the state ie the tax payer  than we are in the Private sector Bravepants. Imagine in the government turned round and stopped the public sector taking their pensions early or massively reducing down to 5% employer contributions like we are subjected to. . Be like The Poll Tax riots in the 80s.

Then your friend is either fortunate or unable to complete large parts of their role due to current restrictions. Some services are clearly unable to run as effectively as they usually do. Other parts of the Public Sector are by contrast working all hours under the Sun and beyond.

Pensions are part of a salary package, as in all walks of life some take an interest, some do not. Public sector posts and pensions have been reformed over the past decade or more, are less generous than they were and there have been large cuts in that time in the number/ type of role/ level of responsibility for Public Sector posts.

I find it interesting the line of thought about "leveling down" as opposed to trying to "level up", there is a large degree of personal responsibility in making provision for retirement, for all sectors. Hands up I am a PS employee, a role I enjoy mostly, it also worth pointing out I am also a tax payer too, yes we work overtime and this also pushes some of us into HRT, depending on role. The average NHS Pension (according to my Trust Pension Officer that I spoke to) is around 5k pa, NAO says it is around 7k pa, while the Local Govt av pension is around 4k. These are not huge sums, few people (I admit though I am one) work full time for long enough to get a full pension.

Pile_o_stone

Prism said:

Pile_o_stone said:

Prism said:

Pile_o_stone said:

Prism said:

doris540 said:

Friend of mine who works at The Home office in London is working from home on full pay, They said their work load equates to a max of 2 hours a day and that theyve been told they wont be back in the office until at least next March. The public sector wont see massive job losses over the forthcoming months either. Many in the private sector will see their jobs go and in turn their pensions  grind to a halt along with a bleak outlook. Just remember those that are furloughed in The Public sector which in proportion to The Private sector is minimal are still getting a far higher percentage paid into their pensions by the state ie the tax payer  than we are in the Private sector Bravepants. Imagine in the government turned round and stopped the public sector taking their pensions early or massively reducing down to 5% employer contributions like we are subjected to. . Be like The Poll Tax riots in the 80s.

I get a 0% employer contribution and have never received one in my working life - yet I still manage to contribute enough to a pension. Stop worrying about what others get or don't get and focus on yourself - you'll be much happier.

How does you employer get around the Workplace Pension regulations? The table below show the rates an employer has to contribute:

Up until 5 April 2018	1%	2% (including 1% staff contribution)
6 April 2018 to 5 April 2019	2%	5% (including 3% staff contribution)
Current rates - 6 April 2019 onwards	3%	8% (including 5% staff contribution)

https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/about-pensions/pensions-basics/automatic-enrolment/how-much-do-i-and-my-employer-have-to-pay

I am not an employee but run my own limited company. Before that I was self employed and my original employers didn't have a pension scheme. So I do pay into a SIPP but I need to fund that myself, through my company. 

I guess its technically salary sacrifice and the line is blurred between what the company pays and what I would otherwise pay myself.

I used to be a contractor with my own limited company. My company paid a decent amount into my pension pot and into my wife's pension pot (she was the company secretary) as it was a fantastic way to reduce my limited company's tax liability. For tax purposes, the pension contributions were listed as Employer Contributions. 

Yes its certainly a great way to contribute. From a tax perspective its simply a company expenses and doesn't differentiate between what is a company contribution or employee. For that matter its no different from a corporation tax point of view to a salary. 
Doris540 has an issue with public pensions without seemingly understanding that pension payments are the equivalent of a salary enhancement and in the case of public sector jobs often reduce the take home salary to account for the higher contributions.

I don't think it's just Doris540 who forgets that these generous public sector pensions are 'deferred pay' - I've heard plenty of public sector workers moan about how their income doesn't match up to an equivalent job in the private sector. Perhaps the fairest way is to equalise pay and benefits between the public and private sector and let public sector workers decide if they want to prioritise pension payments over their take home pay?

It would also help end the issue where a decreasing pool of young taxpayers are paying increasing amounts towards the pensions of public sector workers, some of whom perhaps retired before the young taxpayer was even born.

Silvertabby

Pile_o_stone said:

Prism said:

Pile_o_stone said:

Prism said:

Pile_o_stone said:

Prism said:

doris540 said:

Friend of mine who works at The Home office in London is working from home on full pay, They said their work load equates to a max of 2 hours a day and that theyve been told they wont be back in the office until at least next March. The public sector wont see massive job losses over the forthcoming months either. Many in the private sector will see their jobs go and in turn their pensions  grind to a halt along with a bleak outlook. Just remember those that are furloughed in The Public sector which in proportion to The Private sector is minimal are still getting a far higher percentage paid into their pensions by the state ie the tax payer  than we are in the Private sector Bravepants. Imagine in the government turned round and stopped the public sector taking their pensions early or massively reducing down to 5% employer contributions like we are subjected to. . Be like The Poll Tax riots in the 80s.

I get a 0% employer contribution and have never received one in my working life - yet I still manage to contribute enough to a pension. Stop worrying about what others get or don't get and focus on yourself - you'll be much happier.

How does you employer get around the Workplace Pension regulations? The table below show the rates an employer has to contribute:

Up until 5 April 2018	1%	2% (including 1% staff contribution)
6 April 2018 to 5 April 2019	2%	5% (including 3% staff contribution)
Current rates - 6 April 2019 onwards	3%	8% (including 5% staff contribution)

https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/about-pensions/pensions-basics/automatic-enrolment/how-much-do-i-and-my-employer-have-to-pay

I am not an employee but run my own limited company. Before that I was self employed and my original employers didn't have a pension scheme. So I do pay into a SIPP but I need to fund that myself, through my company. 

I guess its technically salary sacrifice and the line is blurred between what the company pays and what I would otherwise pay myself.

I used to be a contractor with my own limited company. My company paid a decent amount into my pension pot and into my wife's pension pot (she was the company secretary) as it was a fantastic way to reduce my limited company's tax liability. For tax purposes, the pension contributions were listed as Employer Contributions. 

Yes its certainly a great way to contribute. From a tax perspective its simply a company expenses and doesn't differentiate between what is a company contribution or employee. For that matter its no different from a corporation tax point of view to a salary. 
Doris540 has an issue with public pensions without seemingly understanding that pension payments are the equivalent of a salary enhancement and in the case of public sector jobs often reduce the take home salary to account for the higher contributions.

I don't think it's just Doris540 who forgets that these generous public sector pensions are 'deferred pay' - I've heard plenty of public sector workers moan about how their income doesn't match up to an equivalent job in the private sector. Perhaps the fairest way is to equalise pay and benefits between the public and private sector and let public sector workers decide if they want to prioritise pension payments over their take home pay?

It would also help end the issue where a decreasing pool of young taxpayers are paying increasing amounts towards the pensions of public sector workers, some of whom perhaps retired before the young taxpayer was even born.

With my LGPS experience, I would guess that if lower paid workers were offered the choice of a 'gold plated' LGPS pension or an extra 20 % salary the vast majority would opt for jam today. 

[Deleted User]

Don’t know about the UK but in the US public sector pensions are a time bomb. They are being run on the assumption of 7-8% annual returns. A sustained bear market will bankrupt most of them. And the money involved will dwarf the cost of 2008 and coronavirus combined.

Albermarle

A couple on £30k each contributing 10% for 35 years should do it. I know plenty of couples both in the 50-100k region though it probably took a few years to get to that point. On salaries like that you are possibly looking at a pot £3m+

I know a couple where they are both somewhere in the £65K region . He has just retired at 66 , she is younger ( senior teacher)

Apart from her teachers pension, they have max £500K in DC pensions, savings etc and a two bedroomed semi in a so so area .

All down to very poor expenditure control and lack of interest in financial matters . Both income and expenditure are as important when it comes to saving

vulcanrtb

Albermarle said:

A couple on £30k each contributing 10% for 35 years should do it. I know plenty of couples both in the 50-100k region though it probably took a few years to get to that point. On salaries like that you are possibly looking at a pot £3m+

I know a couple where they are both somewhere in the £65K region . He has just retired at 66 , she is younger ( senior teacher)

Apart from her teachers pension, they have max £500K in DC pensions, savings etc and a two bedroomed semi in a so so area .

All down to very poor expenditure control and lack of interest in financial matters . Both income and expenditure are as important when it comes to saving

And this is an example of a not well off couple in retirement?

jamjar92

Deleted_User said:

Don’t know about the UK but in the US public sector pensions are a time bomb. They are being run on the assumption of 7-8% annual returns. A sustained bear market will bankrupt most of them. And the money involved will dwarf the cost of 2008 and coronavirus combined.

The Civil service pensions and LGPS pensions are two entities with different rules and contributions rates, each area of the UK, they run their own LGPS for the surrounding councils with their own baord of trustees.

Private Sector do contribute to LGPS where jobs have moved to the private sector from public sector including Housing Association. The LPGS since 2008 as not the same scheme (benefits) I signed up for at 18, gold plated no, those days have gone.  I am happy the pension I eventually take increases each year by CPI.

Time4T_Accounts

My (now retired) wife has what I consider to be a good civil service pension.  Her final 10 years were spent in a middle management (almost, but not quite, a senior civil servant) post.  The job was, euphemistically, difficult. I consider her pension to be compensation for that difficult time. I, on the other hand, come from a section of the private sector that is not known for any - let alone generous- pension contributions;  but, I thoroughly enjoyed my work.  I saved hard from age 30, and am now comfortably retired - but I have to manage my income now in a way that my wife doesn’t.  You make your choices, and you take the consequences.

Prism

vulcanrtb said:

Albermarle said:

A couple on £30k each contributing 10% for 35 years should do it. I know plenty of couples both in the 50-100k region though it probably took a few years to get to that point. On salaries like that you are possibly looking at a pot £3m+

I know a couple where they are both somewhere in the £65K region . He has just retired at 66 , she is younger ( senior teacher)

Apart from her teachers pension, they have max £500K in DC pensions, savings etc and a two bedroomed semi in a so so area .

All down to very poor expenditure control and lack of interest in financial matters . Both income and expenditure are as important when it comes to saving

And this is an example of a not well off couple in retirement?

Correct. For a couple pulling in 130k per year, a 500k pot isn't likely to give them the same lifestyle they may be used to. Of course it depends how good the teachers pension is based on years of service.

Albermarle

vulcanrtb said:

Albermarle said:

A couple on £30k each contributing 10% for 35 years should do it. I know plenty of couples both in the 50-100k region though it probably took a few years to get to that point. On salaries like that you are possibly looking at a pot £3m+

I know a couple where they are both somewhere in the £65K region . He has just retired at 66 , she is younger ( senior teacher)

Apart from her teachers pension, they have max £500K in DC pensions, savings etc and a two bedroomed semi in a so so area .

All down to very poor expenditure control and lack of interest in financial matters . Both income and expenditure are as important when it comes to saving

And this is an example of a not well off couple in retirement?

No, they are significantly better off than average and have no pressing money worries. However it is an example of how amassing wealth is not just about the income size but expenditure. Their assets are low relative to their dual income , especially their property size/value.