To think public sector pensions should be slashed?

And you propose to fund this how exactly?

They should be cut. It’s a huge Ponzi scheme. Starmer even has his own statutory instrument to protect his huge pension.

Nothing more to be said really. Reducing everyone to the lowest possible level doesn’t seem a brilliant idea.

Well actually I agree. Although I think the salary should raise at the same time. Then at least we wouldn't have people complaining that public sector is low paid and strikes would hopefully be less of a thing.
FWIW I work for a charity. So worst of both worlds. Crap pay, crap pension. Gah

This whole discussion reminds me a lot of the kinds of comments that are always made when state pensions are discussed. People say "I paid in!" without doing any of the maths.

For example, a full time job on minimum wage is roughly £24k per year now. If we presumed somebody earned that throughout their 35 qualifying years their national insurance contributions at current rates of NI (higher than they used to be decades ago) are £76.20 per month (assuming no student loan or pension contribution at all, which would make this even lower). Over 35 years that equates to total NI payments of £32k. Yet they believe they have "paid for" a pension of over £12k per year for 20 years or more, that is guaranteed and not just index-linked but has the triple lock (the actual value of such an annuity is over ten times the contributions they have made over their lifetime).

The average full time salary in the UK is now roughly £37k. Using the same parameters that means a maximum NI contribution of just £162 per month. Over 35 years this is £68k of contributions. Again, a tiny fraction of the value of the state pension they receive (which it would cost roughly £300k to purchase). But rather than gratitude at other taxpayers subsidising this there is endless complaining.

And that's before you even look at those who worked part time or barely worked at all. The bottom line is that most people in the UK pay nowhere near enough tax to fund the services they expect to receive. It is not possible to fund these things unless that changes. Meanwhile the low and middle earners who are significantly underpaying in comparison to most other European countries don't feel they can't afford higher tax rates because living standards in the UK have stagnated because productivity is dire so salaries have had no significant real-terms increase in decades. Yet people just argue about what they're "entitled" to and won't engage with any possible solutions to actually fix that problem.

You realise that that would just mean that the skilled public sector workers who have the option to do so will leave?

If the pension is slashed without any corresponding salary increase, the public sector will lose the majority of its skilled professionals.

Have you actually read any of my posts? I haven't suggested that should happen. Quite the opposite.

I wouldn't worry too much. Public sector pensions are linked to the ever increasing state retirement age.

I doubt most of them will be paying out for very long.

You realise that that would just mean that the skilled public sector workers who have the option to do so will leave?

If the pension is slashed without any corresponding salary increase, the public sector will lose the majority of its skilled professionals.

That means solicitors, accountants, tax specialists, planning specialists, data analysts, engineers, scientists, doctors etc... Those skills are in really high demand, so they'll have no difficulty moving into the private sector, or abroad.

I pay plenty into my pension, because I can afford to and I’m knowledgable about pensions. I’m talking about those who aren’t so lucky and need helping/incentivising.

That may well be so, but lets up the salaries first shall we?

Obviously that would be pointless. Salaries rise sustainably once there are productivity increases, hence the UK having no real-terms pay growth for over a decade now. If you raise salaries with no underlying productivity gains then you simply generate inflation that cancels out the increase. This is basic stuff. This is why economic reform is needed, so it is possible for living standards to rise.

I have a private DB pension. My employer pays 14.5% on top of my 10% which is a lot but colleagues in other companies are paid more so the whole package isn't better. Couldn't you pay more into your pension?

Don’t worry….my NHS Trust is about to make 100s of people in support services redundant. It’s only us actual workers that are going to lose our careers, security, future financial stability and continuous service benefits when we get thrown on the scrap heap. 21 years loyal service means nothing apparently. All the managers will be fine - there just won’t be anyone to do the actual work. So yeah, some of your taxpayer money will be saved there.

That may well be so, but lets up the salaries first shall we?

Because the history of pension reform in the UK is the pension goes down and the salary stays the same....

& a big adv of higher pensions is that this keeps older people warm and healthier off benefits of any kind and in the event of death, will assist the surviving partner too.

If the state doesn't top up the pension, then they will have to top up the salaries etc.

Yes, I said that myself in an earlier comment as well. We need a workable economic model and tax system so that productivity rises and salaries increase in real-terms for both public and private sector employees so that they are in line with international rates in comparable countries. However, part of the changes that need to be made is reforming the public sector pension model because it is unsustainable.

Well, explain that to the 10s of 1000s of people who leave sectors like Health and Education each year because the pay is shit and the workloads are too high?

If the state doesn't top up the pension, then they will have to top up the salaries etc.

Someone i know recently left her Band 6 NHS front line position to go into the private sector, she has increased her pay by 50%.... true, a lower pension but she needs the money now, not when she is 67 & wont get hit for £1200 per year parking either or for that matter get hit.....

If working in the public sector is so marvellous makes you wonder why those in the private sector don't move then.

Even if someone with a DC scheme had the same levels of contributions as a percentage of salary (both employee and employer) and earned an identical amount a DB scheme still provides a pension far in excess of that which person with the DC scheme could purchase having contribute exactly the same amount, especially not with the index linking. That is the point that many people don't appear to be grasping.

The taxpayer is paying the excess for the unfunded public sector DB scheme recipients i.e. millions of people who could not possibly obtain such a generous pension being forced to pay higher taxes to fund that generosity to others: a regressive policy.

I don’t think anyone’s missed that?

It’s the massive “employer” contributions and income guarantee that people think is unfair, which you simply don’t get in the private sector. 5-12.5% is absolutely paltry in comparison to what a private sector employee would need to pay in, I know many people who pay in 15-20% to secure their retirement as they have no other choice. The legal employer contribution is 3% on £6-50k, i.e. it’s capped at £1,320 a year. Some employers voluntarily add more but the majority do not.

I suspect many private sector employees don’t pay anywhere like those contribution levels into their pensions. If they did it would go some way to making up the disparity (although I do recognise that the difference in employer contributions is hard to make up)

This is definitely true. I pay about 25% of my salary at the moment and my employer pays less than 1%. But I am free to work in the public sector if I wanted to obviously. In my case the deal is worse overall even taking my woeful pension into account.

A lot of people seem to miss that public sector employees also pay into their pensions and the contribution rates can be high. In the LGPS employee contribution rates range between 5.5 to 12.5% depending on salary. Police officers pay between 11 to 15.05% depending on salary and scheme. Teachers pay between 7.4 and 11.7% depending on pay. In most cases they cannot pay less than this if they want to be in the scheme (although some schemes do have some options to pay less and get a lower pension).

I suspect many private sector employees don’t pay anywhere like those contribution levels into their pensions. If they did it would go some way to making up the disparity (although I do recognise that the difference in employer contributions is hard to make up).

I have just 'cashed in' my final salary NHS pension at 55.
Just to really piss you off ...the lump sum was MASSIVE.
Cheers.

I left the public sector a couple of years ago after working for over 8 years and recieving a total of 2% pay rise in the entire time I was there. The pension was the only thing keeping me going as that was a career average DB scheme set at 1/65th . However the year after I joined that was changed to 1/95th for all new employees which made it worse that most private sector pensions as the salary was over 20k a year more in private, plus at least inflationary pay rises every year. That said I'm actually shifting again to a university in the new year which puts me back on a DB scheme, but the uni pays market rates for jobs and does give a pay rise every year.

Public workers get terrible salaries . The only thing going for these jobs is the pension. Cut that and watch everyone leave.

good point. to get the best annuity rate i didn't tick the quote options to pay out on death, or to provide any kind of guarantee period. most people would want this and if so, they'd need to accept a lower amount or forgo index linking, or save up a bigger pot to compensate.