We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NHS Pension
Comments
-
So, employer contributions had to be increased in order to maintain the accrual rate?hugheskevi said:Silvertabby said:
Yes and no. If the employer contribution were to be reduced, then the pension accrual rate (and/or other factors) would also have to be reduced to reflect that.daveyjp said:For clarification. The NHS doesn't pay anything into employees individual pension.
The NHS contribution of 23.7% is based on an actuarial calculation which is updated every 4 years. It has no influence on how much pension is received when an employee retires.The main cause of a big employer contribution rate change is a change to the scheme discount rate. That affects the value of liabilities, and in turn the notional past service deficit/surplus.Under the cost cap regulations, protected elements such as accrual rate, etc, only change if the scheme is outside of the cost cap at the 4-yearly valuation, and changes to financials such as the discount rate do not count toward the cost cap assessment.So lots of hocus pocus actuarial calculations, but as a result of the rules, there can be very big changes to employer contributions that do not affect member benefits, hence why the employer contribution rate is meaningless in determining the value of member pension.As an example, in 2015/16 the average Civil Servant employer contribution was 21.1%. It is now 28.97%. The rules of the alpha scheme have not changed in that time, so members accrue exactly the same pension, they are just told it is worth 28.97% now, rather than 21.1%.
When the LGPS CARE details were first announced, my then colleagues and I couldn't believe how generous they were, considering that they had been introduced with a view to saving money. Yes, long term career seniors would have been better off on a Final Salary scheme, but many low paid manual workers - particularly those on substantial extras/overtime (which weren't pensionable under FS) will receive a higher pension under CARE than if they had remained on FS terms. I suspect the NHS has similar stats - but perhaps not the Civil Service, as they don't seem to have as many minimum wage/manual staff.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.5K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
