Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think public sector DB pensions should be illegal

365 replies

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:24

Everyone seems to accept that it's obvious that the private sector, speaking very generally, pays better salaries in-year but the public sector makes up for it in excellent defined benefit (DB) pensions.

As in, you get a certain amount paid to you indefinitely, based on how many years of service, your level reached, average or final salary, etc.

Everyone acts like this is normal but it is actually insane!

Growing up in school I was always taught that it was a fundamental principle of a parliamentary democracy that one parliament cannot bind another. Parliament should be able to override anything a previous parliament did, so that voters always have the ability to change course democratically and nothing is locked in forever.

But having DB pensions for public sector workers is binding future parliaments into very large financial commitments that will leave them increasingly less wriggle room.

It would be one thing if they were defined contribution pots that were in each individual's name. That would operate independently and doesn't represent an obligation on future governments to pay out pensions out of future taxpayer money, maybe future taxpayers who have different priorities for what they want to spend the money on.

AIBU to think public sector salary culture should, if anything, be the reverse: high salaries now, because the government is legally not allowed to commit to future compensation in another government's name?

OP posts:
Dalesway · 29/07/2026 20:18

Anyone contributing to a pension, DB, DC, Other, should get an extra paid days leave and a £25 gift voucher each year to spend on said day off for getting off their arses, working, paying taxes and paying into a pension to hopefully eat and heat in retirement.

I'll implement when I'm PM, my turn can't be far off.

LuckyHazelFox · 29/07/2026 20:18

Haven't you opened up a hornet's nest @OneAmberFinch there's some very defensive recipients of gold plated pensions.

JoshLymanSwagger · 29/07/2026 20:18

My Local Authority Pension Scheme is in profit - it's not costing you a single penny.

I paid 4% of my salary (iirc) from 1990, I believe the LA paid 7%.

That would be 4% of under £100 per week at the time.

I'd much rather have earned 7% more and saved it in an ISA.

chirrupybird · 29/07/2026 20:17

LuckyHazelFox · 29/07/2026 20:11

They were handsomely rewarded with a blank cheque for overtime.

Overtime to increase their chances of death? At the normal overtime rate, I'll go for that, Not.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 20:16

JJWT · 29/07/2026 20:12

A race to the bottom post! Our pensions are basically deferred pay. I could have earned a fortune with my PHYSICS degree but chose to spend since 1989 teaching the nation's children. I have airline and fighter pilots among my alumni, not to mention Rolls Royce Engineers working on nuclear submarines, aeronautical Engineers, IT leaders, radiographers, etc. You're welcome. How on Earth could you move the goalposts once someone has done each year's work? They can't retrospectively change the terms any more than I can retrospectively suck the knowledge out of my students' heads! We have a contract. Its in our Ts and Cs. Your choice was not to take this career path with its relatively low pay but secure pension. We all had the same range of paths to choose from within the appropriate level of academic ability. Your post is utter gibberish.

Yup and my quite simple point is "I don't think the government should do deferred pay, they should pay it all in-year"

OP posts:
Papyrophile · 29/07/2026 20:15

I think your post is very naughty, and not in the childish mischief vein. We have had periods when companies with long serving workforces ran decent pension schemes that paid out on schedule. We have also had some very high profile rogue schemes, like Maxwell, which were completely fraudulent and unfunded.

But for a lot of self-employed people, like DH and I, the answer was to create a small personal scheme (ours covers DH, DS and me). Ours has been operating since about 2003, it owns a single commercial shed, and our tenant only has to pay the rent to enjoy use of the property. We set the scheme up almost 20 years ago, and it has "washed its face" which means it has covered its costs and put a bit (not riches) into the pot.

I hear all the arguments about someone else paying the mortgage. And they did. But when a brand new tenant goes bankrupt on you, owing £30k for a years rent and has trashed your premises to boot, costing £30k to fix back to the state that you can re-let, and you've required legal advice at every stage, the pension fund has taken a hit of eight or nine years profit. I do not have pockets deep enough to deal with the advisers and their fees. So when the tenancy ends, however it happens, we will sell out and bank the profit., if there is any. And for all the admin, and all the effort, we shall be taxed at roughly 45%. Sorry if young businesses can't find premises to rent. It's the price of socialism.

JJWT · 29/07/2026 20:15

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 17:32

The government of today can hire you and pay you this year and for the next five years, the government of five years' time can fire you if they think your job isn't something they want to fund, yes, what's the problem?

Quite different from the government of 5 years' time being forced to pay another 20y of pension for someone who retired 5 years before they even came into power and had no control of the hiring of.

If you don't know what the problem would be with that you shouldn't be allowed on the internet without a carer.

Ilikewinter · 29/07/2026 20:15

What about if the pension changes were made for any new joins, in exchange for a higher base salary? Would be interesting to see what those in their 20's for example would think.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 20:14

NoSausage · 29/07/2026 20:10

Amused that you have an 80% poll going against your viewpoint so, democratically speaking, you're outnumbered.

I don't think I've ever posted an AIBU that had people agree with me overall :)

I do think a lot of posters aren't comprehending my point though. I do appreciate the few posters who have made thoughtful and substantive disagreements and challenges, for example asking my opinion on long-term government debt, or pointing out the usefulness of deferred comp as a retention tool.

Very willing to have more of that. "Why do you hate our hardworking teachers and nurses" type responses are just arguing with a strawman though.

OP posts:
chirrupybird · 29/07/2026 20:13

If you put your extra salary into a pension does it even out?

JJWT · 29/07/2026 20:12

A race to the bottom post! Our pensions are basically deferred pay. I could have earned a fortune with my PHYSICS degree but chose to spend since 1989 teaching the nation's children. I have airline and fighter pilots among my alumni, not to mention Rolls Royce Engineers working on nuclear submarines, aeronautical Engineers, IT leaders, radiographers, etc. You're welcome. How on Earth could you move the goalposts once someone has done each year's work? They can't retrospectively change the terms any more than I can retrospectively suck the knowledge out of my students' heads! We have a contract. Its in our Ts and Cs. Your choice was not to take this career path with its relatively low pay but secure pension. We all had the same range of paths to choose from within the appropriate level of academic ability. Your post is utter gibberish.

Facecream24 · 29/07/2026 20:12

I think you need to look into it a bit further, the LGPS I’m in is doing so well in funding itself that it’s actually agreed to reduce the amount employers pay in this year.

deplorabelle · 29/07/2026 20:12

What about the triple lock state pension? That also binds future governments

LuckyHazelFox · 29/07/2026 20:11

Miffsmumandslave · 29/07/2026 20:02

I think you should cast your mind back to who actually were the most important, required workers during the lockdowns.Who actually put their lives on the line for you and turned up for work, very few from home.
you’re pension shaming those same people.

They were handsomely rewarded with a blank cheque for overtime.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 20:10

fedupofselfishpeople · 29/07/2026 20:08

what are you hoping to achieve by this thread - only the rich can retire?

Do you think my message in this thread is that we should just cancel pensions and leave salaries exactly the same?

OP posts:
NoSausage · 29/07/2026 20:10

Amused that you have an 80% poll going against your viewpoint so, democratically speaking, you're outnumbered.

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 20:10

Miffsmumandslave · 29/07/2026 20:02

I think you should cast your mind back to who actually were the most important, required workers during the lockdowns.Who actually put their lives on the line for you and turned up for work, very few from home.
you’re pension shaming those same people.

Pension-shaming. Now I've heard it all...

I think a lot of posters read the title of this thread and assumed a lot of things I haven't actually said...

OP posts:
fedupofselfishpeople · 29/07/2026 20:08

what are you hoping to achieve by this thread - only the rich can retire?

LoudTealHare · 29/07/2026 20:06

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:30

3.5m used to be in private sector DB schemes in the past which blew my mind.
Don’t forgot public sector schemes are less generous for newer entrants.

They’re less generous for all staff! Everyone has now been moved into the 2015 scheme which is based on a career average salary! So everyone is getting smaller pensions, despite the fact they are paying in exactly the same percentage!

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 20:04

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 29/07/2026 19:55

You are incredibly unreasonable.

The public sector pays substantially lower salaries for equivalent responsibility roles than the private sector. The pay off (and it probably doesn’t fully make up for it) is the decent - and it’s really not so fabulous any more - pension.

If we want the public sector to continue to attract good people, the pension is really the only thing we can continue to offer. Talented people so still go into the CS (for example) because of this - and I’m sure it’s the same for teachers, drs etc. We can’t expect them to just do it out of the goodness of their hearts- even though many do at least in part.

The CS certainly is very competitive still, it’s hard to get into, but it won’t be if there’s nothing to offer.

Okay, but just work with me here: why can't the government simply pay all of it upfront?

You're saying the pension is the only option to be competitive. So I'm assuming you're saying that they couldn't pay it now, today?

This is the equivalent of saying that they aren't adequately funding the pension scheme today. In theory, there should be no difference between a cash payout today, and putting the same money aside for a future pension - based on some actuarial calculation of equivalent values across the decades.

So either there's enough money to do this and it's not a problem so they might as well just pay the cash. OR there isn't enough money and the promise of the pension is just a lie that some future government is going to bear the brunt of. Which do you think it is?

OP posts:
barofsoap · 29/07/2026 20:03

pension was the only thing that kept us plodding on in the NHS

Miffsmumandslave · 29/07/2026 20:02

I think you should cast your mind back to who actually were the most important, required workers during the lockdowns.Who actually put their lives on the line for you and turned up for work, very few from home.
you’re pension shaming those same people.

RetiredFromExplaining · 29/07/2026 20:01

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:22

I'm not the person who invented the concept of not binding future parliaments, but yes, I agree that debts also use a similar mechanism. I'm interested to discuss this with other posters actually. Do you think debt constrains future parliaments to an unacceptable level?

I'm not sure if I have a strong view on this yet, but my sense is that it might depend on the scale and level of repayments. Getting to a point where debt repayment each year is starting to significantly constrain other choices feels more wrong. But it feels less like a hard and fast rule to me because as you say, debt can be a useful financial tool if used appropriately.

Where you cannot constrain a future parliament is to say for example, we are abolishing women’s rights forever. A future parliament can reverse that. The most interesting example of parliament reversing a previous parliamentary act is the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, reversing the Act of Union 1707.

What you are confusing is the actions of the state by the executive (previously the monarch, now the government, as in ministers etc) with the actions of parliament. Confusingly in the UK the executive comes from the legislature, when it is separated in some countries (most notably the USA). Parliament is the legislative arm of the state - the judiciary makes up the third arm.

Thus the executive can borrow and loan money and pays our debts and pensions (if you think binding parliament means we cannot pay the pensions of civil servants, then neither can we pay the state pension or benefits either). The executive can do what it wants within the law and part of the law is that states are allowed to enter into contracts with its citizens and with other countries. If we couldn’t do this then global trade and defence would fall apart in a heartbeat.

I would explain more, but you can look this stuff up on Wikipedia. I am not interested in explaining basic democratic concepts to idiots.

hollystar500 · 29/07/2026 20:00

canthavetoomanylights · 29/07/2026 17:46

What amazes me is none of you actually understand that crap wages for many years doesn’t mean a big pension. I worked 42 years in the nhs, leaving on a salary of 60k.
Like many colleagues I worked part time for several years to raise a family. (No free childcare, very few nurseries)
My pension is £12k.

This……how many public sector staff are female? Who have had caring responsibilities and who have worked part time or shifts to manage family life? The Pensions for anyone who has worked part time for any periods are shocking

for anyone who thinks it’s so great get your job applications in

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:56

LipglossAndLies · 29/07/2026 19:35

My DB pension is covered my employees contributions rhe fund is well managed and today my contributions are funding those who have retired. They are dropping the employers contributions because of a surplus. So no not all db pensions are paid by the government of whoever you think does pay them.

Just like our tax on our cinemas pays dor the state pensions od those pensioners today and when we retire the generations below me will pay for mine.

If we decide no DB pensions lets get rid of state pension too and everyone is accou table for financing their own retirement....happy OP?

Very happy to also replace the state pension with well-funded private DC pensions :) I think Australia's superannuation model is more along these lines.

The same pyramid scheme accusations can be levied at the state pension, which is a DB pension paid by the taxpayer. No argument from me.

OP posts: