What will teachers pension increase by this year? 10% CPI?

SouthCoastBoy

These articles may be of interest, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900 and https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019, perhaps the pay differential is not what some people think it is?

Grumpy_chap

AlanP_2 said:

Please don't take this the wrong way but, if you want a similar pension, why don't you get a public sector job? 

Do new joiners to public sector still get the same kind of pension that the public sector has been known for historically?

My father worked all his career for London Underground before retiring in 1992 and his pension truly was fantastic.  He'd also benefitted from the "job for life" that public sector offered at that time.

How much of that could be repeated given that there is now so much outsourcing etc?

jimi_man

No they don't. Most public sector pensions now are Career Average rather than Final Salary, however it's still a Defined Benefit pension. 

Also, now you usually have to work longer and pay more. I joined the police at age 21 and 30 years later came out with a 2/3 pension payable immediately and I paid 11% for most of those years. And I thought that was a lot!

Now it's 60-67 depending on the scheme rules and (in the case of the Police) around 13-14%.

Secret2ndAccount

Exodi said:

I know I'm going to be hated for saying this, but the stereotype that 'all pensioners are poor' is outdated in our modern day society. Free travel, tv licenses, fuel subsidies, consumer discounts, government schemes, etc at the same time that housing values have had a once in a lifetime gazillion percent increase. Anecdotally, of the pensioners I know, most find it quite perplexing that despite having very little outgoings, they are given wheelbarrows of public cash. My stepdad puts his winter fuel allowance straight into savings every year, I doubt he's the only one. Obviously there will be also be people that are desperate for this cash.

Plus, in the past lucrative DB pensions were more prevelant. Since then employers have realised how costly they are to maintain and largely non-public employees are contributing to DC pensions... which usually are a sliver of an equivelant DB scheme. You have people that have double dipped on this - life expectancy has dramatically increased whereas they may not have necessarily 'paid their fair share' for the benefit (obviously the longer you live with a DB pension the better, because the amount you get is fixed, whereas with a DC it can poses challenges), at the same time they have been embraced by the public purse (or moreso, their voting power allows them to be ).

It just seems like overkill that people who have better pensions than the current workforce, living in houses that have 100x in value, while living longer than they contributed for, are subsidised by people currently working in a cost of living crisis.

Unfortunately, I'm very aware of this forums demographic, so I'm fully ready to be shot down for this!

Those things that you listed: the benefits and good fortune that are bestowed upon pensioners. Perhaps the pensioners don't see them as gifts that fell from the sky. Perhaps they view them as achievements. The British people worked together as a cohesive group. They didn't start any wars. They worked hard, and constantly improved productivity. More people graduated university. This brought about an unprecedented period of prosperity which gave many people opportunities they had never before had. For example owning their own homes. The medical inventions and understanding of nutrition which have given us longer, healthier lives: no luck involved there. Given the economy and infrastructure that our previous generation have handed on to us, I'm pretty happy if they all get a cheque for 100 quid at Christmas. The ones who don't need it should give it away. That's what I did with my fuel rebate when it arrived.
Trump / Farage / Zuckerberg have noticed that if you create conflict and division you get more attention than if you espouse harmony and progress. It's up to you whether you choose to listen to the dividers or to pull for another 20 years of cooperation and productivity. Try, when you retire, to leave behind an economy that can afford to pay you £100 at Christmas, even if you don't need it.

Terron

german_keeper said:

Terron said:

nigelbb said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I think the next few years could highlight the massive difference between govt db, db and dc pensions
 The govt db pensions really are the gold standard when it comes to pensions.

My partner has a govt db pension, I work in the private sector and have a DC pension.

She hadn't really paid much attention to her pension (we're still relatively young) but we looked at it for the first time a couple of weeks ago and... I mean jesus wept, it is absolutely bonkers. I earn about 60% more than her (and contribute equivalently), yet her pension is likely to be 4x+ mine.

While we might be able to go on the odd holiday every other month on mine, her pension could easily see us on a cruise every month with spending money.

I heard the stereotypes about public sector pensions, but as a private sector worker, your eyes will water if you see the actual numbers behind them.

You don't contribute equivalently. You have chosen to work for a higher salary & poorer pension. It's always been the way with public sector jobs. The old deal was that working in the public sector was a lower salary with a good pension plus secure employment but now even the jobs of nurses & teachers aren't safe from redundancy.

No it hasn't. In the mid 80s my sister was a a teacher whilst I was working in the private sector in IT. The pension scheme where I worked was only open to management so I was starting a personal scheme. She claimed I got a higher salary in exchange, but when we checked her pay was higher (by £200pa). I had started working a year before her so it wasn't a matter of seniority. I was also getting a lot of overtime.

Just wondering what the relevance is of comparing the pay and pension of 2 people in completely different jobs?

It shows that the claim that choosing to work in the private sector gives higher pay in exchange for a poorer pension is just wrong. My job was private sector, hers was public sector. As a teacher she got similar pay and a much better pension than I did working in IT. I can't remember my exact job tile at the time - I got lots of promotions in that job. I had to change jobs to get what seemed a good pension and higher salary. But the pension wasn't as good as it appeared. Neither my first nor second employer still exist.

IAMIAM

Heading towards 40, I seem to have banked around £1k per annum in CARE since 2015 and joining, and have a total pension of around 10k per annum at age 65 so far 'banked', I am hoping by the time I hit 60 with accruals, inflations and pay rises, it becomes around 25k-30k per annum. I don't know if this is good or bad in comparison to age and private sector.....

jimi_man

Terron said:

german_keeper said:

Terron said:

nigelbb said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I think the next few years could highlight the massive difference between govt db, db and dc pensions
 The govt db pensions really are the gold standard when it comes to pensions.

My partner has a govt db pension, I work in the private sector and have a DC pension.

She hadn't really paid much attention to her pension (we're still relatively young) but we looked at it for the first time a couple of weeks ago and... I mean jesus wept, it is absolutely bonkers. I earn about 60% more than her (and contribute equivalently), yet her pension is likely to be 4x+ mine.

While we might be able to go on the odd holiday every other month on mine, her pension could easily see us on a cruise every month with spending money.

I heard the stereotypes about public sector pensions, but as a private sector worker, your eyes will water if you see the actual numbers behind them.

You don't contribute equivalently. You have chosen to work for a higher salary & poorer pension. It's always been the way with public sector jobs. The old deal was that working in the public sector was a lower salary with a good pension plus secure employment but now even the jobs of nurses & teachers aren't safe from redundancy.

No it hasn't. In the mid 80s my sister was a a teacher whilst I was working in the private sector in IT. The pension scheme where I worked was only open to management so I was starting a personal scheme. She claimed I got a higher salary in exchange, but when we checked her pay was higher (by £200pa). I had started working a year before her so it wasn't a matter of seniority. I was also getting a lot of overtime.

Just wondering what the relevance is of comparing the pay and pension of 2 people in completely different jobs?

It shows that the claim that choosing to work in the private sector gives higher pay in exchange for a poorer pension is just wrong. My job was private sector, hers was public sector. As a teacher she got similar pay and a much better pension than I did working in IT. I can't remember my exact job tile at the time - I got lots of promotions in that job. I had to change jobs to get what seemed a good pension and higher salary. But the pension wasn't as good as it appeared. Neither my first nor second employer still exist.

I do get what you're saying, but it's worth pointing out that the plural of anecdote is not data. One example doesn't necessarily mean that everyone was in a similar position. Statistically public sector pay has lagged private sector pay (ONS figures) and whilst there was an element of catching up, over the last few years the gap has been increasing again - mainly due to public sector pay restraints/freezes.

So it's not wrong I'm afraid, it's correct. 

Exodi

Secret2ndAccount said:

Exodi said:

I know I'm going to be hated for saying this, but the stereotype that 'all pensioners are poor' is outdated in our modern day society. Free travel, tv licenses, fuel subsidies, consumer discounts, government schemes, etc at the same time that housing values have had a once in a lifetime gazillion percent increase. Anecdotally, of the pensioners I know, most find it quite perplexing that despite having very little outgoings, they are given wheelbarrows of public cash. My stepdad puts his winter fuel allowance straight into savings every year, I doubt he's the only one. Obviously there will be also be people that are desperate for this cash.

Plus, in the past lucrative DB pensions were more prevelant. Since then employers have realised how costly they are to maintain and largely non-public employees are contributing to DC pensions... which usually are a sliver of an equivelant DB scheme. You have people that have double dipped on this - life expectancy has dramatically increased whereas they may not have necessarily 'paid their fair share' for the benefit (obviously the longer you live with a DB pension the better, because the amount you get is fixed, whereas with a DC it can poses challenges), at the same time they have been embraced by the public purse (or moreso, their voting power allows them to be ).

It just seems like overkill that people who have better pensions than the current workforce, living in houses that have 100x in value, while living longer than they contributed for, are subsidised by people currently working in a cost of living crisis.

Unfortunately, I'm very aware of this forums demographic, so I'm fully ready to be shot down for this!

Those things that you listed: the benefits and good fortune that are bestowed upon pensioners. Perhaps the pensioners don't see them as gifts that fell from the sky. Perhaps they view them as achievements. The British people worked together as a cohesive group. They didn't start any wars. They worked hard, and constantly improved productivity. More people graduated university. This brought about an unprecedented period of prosperity which gave many people opportunities they had never before had. For example owning their own homes. The medical inventions and understanding of nutrition which have given us longer, healthier lives: no luck involved there. Given the economy and infrastructure that our previous generation have handed on to us, I'm pretty happy if they all get a cheque for 100 quid at Christmas. The ones who don't need it should give it away. That's what I did with my fuel rebate when it arrived.
Trump / Farage / Zuckerberg have noticed that if you create conflict and division you get more attention than if you espouse harmony and progress. It's up to you whether you choose to listen to the dividers or to pull for another 20 years of cooperation and productivity. Try, when you retire, to leave behind an economy that can afford to pay you £100 at Christmas, even if you don't need it.

But your justification of why pensioners deserve mollycoddling is so vague it could be applied to any generation of the British public. I don't think that the current generations have started any wars either, unless you mean to suggest they don't work hard or don't work as a 'cohesive group' (whatever that means)?

University graduation rates have been increasing YoY, advancements in technology have only accelerated and I'm not sure you can accredit advancements in modern medicine to pensioner Pauline in Surrey - for most people, it absolutely was (on their behalf) a stroke of luck. The benefit is twofold here; they (may) be able to draw more from their pensions than they paid for, and they're using the NHS more than they would have contributed for.

You mention economy and infrasture, without mentioning the significant global warming issues that have been dropped on the laps of future generations to sort out, or the caveat that they won't be able to afford housing without inheriting it or winning the lottery.

You're obviously biased on this because you mention that you're 'happy to give pensioners cheques for all they've done', then later mention that you're a pensioner in receipt of these cheques.

Don't think I'm against supporting the older generation, I think it's an important social contract that absolutely should be continued. I'm just sick to the back teeth of implications that current pensioners earned it, and modern generations are lazy. I'm not even against pensioners taking more than they put in, that is the reward of a growing economy.

It's good that you gave away £100 but given a lot of people can't afford to cook their dinner, it makes you wonder if pensioners (who are significantly better off than they have been in the past) should even be given this money in the first place.

Plus if my understanding is correct, this winter pensioners will be getting winter fuel payments of £200-£300 plus the general energy £400 bonus, plus an additional bonus of £300 for being a pensioner. Those that receive pension credit will get £650 on top.

Completely mental.

german_keeper

Terron said:

german_keeper said:

Terron said:

nigelbb said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I think the next few years could highlight the massive difference between govt db, db and dc pensions
 The govt db pensions really are the gold standard when it comes to pensions.

My partner has a govt db pension, I work in the private sector and have a DC pension.

She hadn't really paid much attention to her pension (we're still relatively young) but we looked at it for the first time a couple of weeks ago and... I mean jesus wept, it is absolutely bonkers. I earn about 60% more than her (and contribute equivalently), yet her pension is likely to be 4x+ mine.

While we might be able to go on the odd holiday every other month on mine, her pension could easily see us on a cruise every month with spending money.

I heard the stereotypes about public sector pensions, but as a private sector worker, your eyes will water if you see the actual numbers behind them.

You don't contribute equivalently. You have chosen to work for a higher salary & poorer pension. It's always been the way with public sector jobs. The old deal was that working in the public sector was a lower salary with a good pension plus secure employment but now even the jobs of nurses & teachers aren't safe from redundancy.

No it hasn't. In the mid 80s my sister was a a teacher whilst I was working in the private sector in IT. The pension scheme where I worked was only open to management so I was starting a personal scheme. She claimed I got a higher salary in exchange, but when we checked her pay was higher (by £200pa). I had started working a year before her so it wasn't a matter of seniority. I was also getting a lot of overtime.

Just wondering what the relevance is of comparing the pay and pension of 2 people in completely different jobs?

It shows that the claim that choosing to work in the private sector gives higher pay in exchange for a poorer pension is just wrong. My job was private sector, hers was public sector. As a teacher she got similar pay and a much better pension than I did working in IT. I can't remember my exact job tile at the time - I got lots of promotions in that job. I had to change jobs to get what seemed a good pension and higher salary. But the pension wasn't as good as it appeared. Neither my first nor second employer still exist.

But it's 2 completely different jobs. My brother in law works in the private sector and earns about 4 or 5 times what I do (or did) but his is also a completely different job to mine so the comparison is irrelevant.

GunJack

The public/private thing can go either way, depending on the job, the sector, and a multitude of other factors. I've mentioned on here before about when I moved from public to private - 20% salary increase, similar role but with less responsibility, and a DB pension which wasn't as good as the CSPS. Salary risen by more % than would have done in CS due to pay restraints in the public sector. Didn't have flexitime immediately (it several yeears later) which was a major downside of moving into the private sector.

It's swings and roundabouts, but so is most of life