To think public sector DB pensions should be illegal

If you check, I think you'll find it was Gordon Brown who trashed pensions. By removing the pension dividend credit.

Civil Service pensions can and have been changed for new joiners …… and also changed for existing civil servants

Local govt pension scheme funds itself. Its very good value for the tax payer

What overtime?

The triple lock does not bind future parliaments (its parliament that isn’t bound in the constitution)
The triple lock is set in legislation, future parliaments can amend or suspend legislation (and since the introduction of the triple lock parliament has changed the relevant legislation)

Maybe do one asking if we shouldnt do that in a few weeks, see if you get the same responses 🙃

But the numbers speak for themselves. There's no mandate to make the change you want.

Are you joking? I joined LGPS at 20, planned a d put extra in so I could retire at 55 with a full pension. Guess what, they changed the rules when I was 40+ so I would get about half ... so they do change the rules.

They’ve been raided several times since the last Tory govt. And Labour haven’t been shy either. Good luck recruiting a cop without it when they’ve had effective pay cuts since 2010.

Out of interest, are you saying a DC pension pot is taxed more heavily than a public sector DB pension?

If you were employed. But I wasn't. I worked hard and earned well, but I was self employed from the age of 35. DH is a small entrepreneur. Our realities might be quite different. In my world, you earn it and give as little away as possible. Because only what clearly belongs to you because you earned it is yours, less whatever the tax due.

As far as I understand it, the problem here is that essentially it was the government that originally put into place define benefit pension schemes that took that benefit and took that advance of cash (back in whatever day, I think around the 1850s!!).

The amount now being paid in is circa amount the amount being paid out so the current government is pretty much funding what they ought to be funding in terms of future benefits. (If you work on the basis that if they were paying the cash out to a to find contribution scheme instead the workers would get the benefits of the growth of that rather than the benefit being used to pay the current people who have retired.)

But because the original government who introduced defined benefit pension schemes back however long ago didn't build up a large pot, there essentially is no pot to draw from which means that you end up with an unsustainable position for any government who wants to change that approach, because they'd have to pay double contributions - even though they are currently paying the right amount.

I'm a social worker with an LGPS pension. I pay 6% of my salary towards it. The job is extremely stressful. If it wasn't for the LGPS I don't think I would stick around, that and the increased annual leave for continuous service. I'd probably move to the charity or voluntary sector where the workloads are much lower, responsibilities are lower and I'd be doing more direct work with families rather than spending most of my time doing paperwork to justify the work I do. I'd also not be part of a profession often stigmatised. Not required to record CPD and register with SWE annually. LGPS will be maintaining a lot of experienced workers in challenging and essential roles. People like to think public service workers have it easy but they really don't. I'm sure there is the odd role which is very nice and fluffy but most are working very hard in jobs that are very important for society.

Completely untrue. Even before career average it was 40 years. Also you now have to work until 67 or your payment is reduced

also receive a reduced state pension.

Everyone retiring is treated the same for state pensions.

I thought it was Gordon Brown's rescinding the pension dividend tax credit that cratered the sector. His first significant budget statement IIRC. The worst Chancellor ever IMO.

You can't know that until you retire, when your defined contribution pension will depend on what the markets are doing at the time.

That is one of the enormous benefits of a defined benefit pension, you know what you are going to get.

It would be an extraordinary defined contribution pension if it could buy the index linked benefits that defined benefits pensions pay for the same money.

As a retired pensions consultant, I can recall the days when the Public Sector DB schemes were regarded as the benchmark by which all private schemes were measured.

YABU. It's not that Public Sector DB schemes should be made illegal, it's that PRIVATE sector schemes need to be brought back to what they were before that bastard Nigel Lawson ruined them

I do think that all public sector workers should be contributing to DC pensions, and facing the same decisions and choices as the rest of us. My pension (DC) is all and only what DH and I have been able to pay in. It definitely ain't index linked but we have put every last penny into it. So to treat it less favourably and tax it harder just because it holds real money and savings is revenge on people who think ahead.

State pension is defined benefit scheme . Is that also to be done away with under your brave new world where pension schemes should not commit future governments to paying them. And all be individual contributions based ? That would certainly put a cat amongst the pigeons.

The government are changing things though, the government commercial service employs staff on wages/ pension/ leave equivalent to private sector. To put it into perspective, in civil service DH earns £70k, in GCS same grade he’d be on £108k, but minimal holiday, sick, pension 3%. The public sector DB schemes are no where near as good as they were, there is no tax free lump sum you can get a tax free lump sum by giving up pension, and they are linked to state pension age, so if that rises, the date you can access your pension rises. If you access it early, you
lose 5% a year. If DH state pension age rises to 70 (not beyond realms of possibility) he’d lose 50% retiring at 60, if it stays at 68 he’d lose 40%! He will still have made the exact same employee contribution, in nhs that’s 12.5%. The goal posts will probably change, but it’s very unfair to change them retrospectively. TBH there is so much more flexibility with a DC scheme, I’d much rather he had that.

You seem to overlook the fact that public sector employees pay a large contribution towards their pension and also receive a reduced state pension.

This is exactly the point you aren’t understanding - most public sector pension schemes (exception being LGPS) aren’t funded. So the contributions of today’s workers are paying the pensions of current pensioners, much like the state pension where taxes/NI pay current pensioners.

If the government did move all public sector employees to DC schemes tomorrow then they would have to pay earmarked contributions for all current employees today, and also continue to pay the £55m odd someone quoted above for current pensioners in addition, rather than just the shortfall between current contributions and benefit outgo. Until all of the liability for currently accrued DB benefits is gone (you can’t change pension entitlements retrospectively) then the government would face a huge black hole to fill, in addition to paying DC contributions for current employees so it’s just unaffordable to change the system. I am a pensions actuary so fairly knowledgable on this!