Local government pension Vs teachers pension

Matt_22

Which is best out of these pensions?

NlghtOwl

Why? 

I’m sure lot of different jobs have different pensions with slightly different rules, historical and current.

El_Torro

Which pension has a better accrual rate?
How do the contributions compare? i.e. what percentage of your salary goes into each one? 
How does the pension increase after you stop paying in? CPI? CPI plus a percentage? is there a cap?

A quick Google tells me that the local government pension is better. Probably worth comparing the two yourself though.

ewaste

It'd depend on the specific variables and member objectives. 

LGPS 49ths accrual, CPI revaluation and typically lower member contribution rates.

TPS 57ths accrual, CPI +1.6% revaluation rate and higher member contribution rates.

Both schemes offer a variety of extra contribution options, TPS offers the option to pay for faster accrual at various rates down to 45ths. 

Matt_22

It appears lgps is better because of the lower accrual rate

Dazed_and_C0nfused

Matt_22 said:

It appears lgps is better because of the lower accrual rate

Isn't a higher accrual rate normally better 😉

Matt_22

I think 1/49 is better then 1/57

QrizB

Matt_22 said:

I think 1/49 is better then 1/57

... and 1/49 is bigger/higher than 1/57, surely?

But after 10 years, 1/57 plus 1.6% annually is worth more than 1/49. So which one results in a larger pension will depend on how old you are, how long you stay in the scheme and what age you then retire at.

Silvertabby

The LGPS accrual rate is better than TPS, but the TPS annual revaluation rate (CPI + 1.6%) is better than the LGPS's CPI only.

For someone joining now, under CARE and with an NRA of SPA, there's really very little in it.

Matt_22

So they would give a very similar pension?

hyubh

Matt_22 said:

Which is best out of these pensions?

The question is academic for any given job, since if you qualify for Teachers with it, you don't qualify for the LGPS. If a potential employer is claiming otherwise, they are clueless - and anything they say now won't prevent a correction being made retrospectively.

As to what is 'better', well the schemes are costed the same. For reasons only those directly involved could explain, the CARE schemes are more different between each other than the final salary schemes they replaced were between each other. But a differing mix of accrual and revaluation rates doesn't imply one has to be 'better' than the other - that will be down to individual circumstance.