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:
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.

LuckyHazelFox · 29/07/2026 19:52

Don't you know your MN audience. I am not surprised at the poll standing! Those who want to be generous with the money pot, aren't so forthcoming when it applies to their personal benefits.

Seajaye · 29/07/2026 19:51

You do realise that the average NHS pension is £7300 per annum of which 20% is taken back in Tax. . Not exactly a fortune. Yes the minority of.long serving highly paid managers do get very good pensions linked to a career average salary, but not sure doing away with the one main benefit in Public sector is going to improve recruitment. The country needs doctors nurses firefighters, police, paramedics , teachers, prison officers etc. what would you be offering instead?

Any1ForTennis · 29/07/2026 19:46

I would earn at least £15K more in the private sector. I would need to move from my home town though hence why I'm happy with my job as its handy for family life.

If DB pensions disappeared there would be a mass exodus out of the public sector unless wages were equal to private sector, its a horrible sector to work in and the thought of retirement is what keeps most of us going.

OneDearWasp · 29/07/2026 19:45

Ilikewinter · 29/07/2026 18:52

I moved from the private sector in the CS and I could potentially buy into this. It would be interesting to see what the uplift in my base salary would be to compensate, and then run some maths to see how that would compare to say, if there are no changes.

Careful what you wish for.

Teachers used to pay 6% contribution for a normal pension age of 60.

If I were still teaching I would be contributing 11% or so for a normal retirement age of 67.

There was no compensating pay uplift when these changes were made.

Fatnearlyslim · 29/07/2026 19:45

When I joined the Police Service 30yrs ago I was paying 11% from my wages to the pension - to be assaulted, work 24/7 & miss events.
In 2015 the Government changed things with one fell swoop, pay 14% and now work 35 yrs and get less.
Thankfully we sued the Government then our toothless Federation and won so this new pension came in, in 2022 instead.
I retired after 30yrs and hopefully will have a long retirement ahead of me, my husband was killed in 2001 on his motorbike aged 44yrs - got nothing from the government and his government pension died with him.
I knew what I signed up for and expected it for all the things I did & saw during my service.
what I’m trying to say is you join up if you want a decent pension & pray that the government don’t change it again 😬

Ps loving retirement- I feel it’s well deserved.

FloridaCheese · 29/07/2026 19:40

You'd need to kill off the unions first

titchy · 29/07/2026 19:36

ChampagneLassie · 29/07/2026 19:26

Obviously it depends on assumptions, but I’d have thought it was obvious to anyone that the longer the time horizon the more imperative it is and we’ll have to do it eventually and the longer we continue with DB we’re just causing more debt for future generations

Read the IFS report. It isn’t causing debt for future generations. It’s fiscally neutral.

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?

mcmuffin22 · 29/07/2026 19:33

Morelovelyandtemperate · 29/07/2026 18:12

It's not just pension though. It's much easier to be off sick or work only contracted hours in the civil service. It's almost impossible to be sacked.

You're wrong. In local authorities particularly they have had round upon round of restructure and redundancies in the last 5 years in particular. With more to come with local government reform. And when I worked for an LA we weren't paid for the first two days in any period of sickness. Yes this is what the union negotiated on our behalf! Now I work for the private sector and the sickness policy is better and also more relaxed. On the subject of working contracted hours - you've never met a nurse, teacher or social worker I assume.

Applesonthelawn · 29/07/2026 19:33

Well my public sector DB pension is not better than I previously had in private DC pensions so I think this must be a generalisation. In any case, if I thought there was a risk to the value of my total package I wouldn't have taken the job either.

fedupofselfishpeople · 29/07/2026 19:29

The goverment doesn't pay the pensions of local government officers - the LGPS does. This is funded by contributions by the employee and the employer, same as all pensions schemes provided by employers. The LGPS does not cost anyone outside the scheme anything - the funds are well investesd and pay for themselves. I know this as I worked for a Local Authority years ago in the eighties and was responsible for purchasing properties on behalf of the pension sheme in some of the most desirable areas of London's commercial areas - Canary Wharf etc - the income from these pays the pensions. There is plenty of information about this online - do your research before you post this sort of crap online just because you think some people have got something at your expnse.

ChampagneLassie · 29/07/2026 19:26

titchy · 29/07/2026 18:58

Why would it be better? The IFG report posted earlier shows it’s fiscally neutral.

Obviously it depends on assumptions, but I’d have thought it was obvious to anyone that the longer the time horizon the more imperative it is and we’ll have to do it eventually and the longer we continue with DB we’re just causing more debt for future generations

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:22

RetiredFromExplaining · 29/07/2026 19:09

You're being ridiculous.

Every time the government agrees a loan they bind future parliaments.

The government accepted the Marshall Plan in the second world war, a massive debt that we didn't finish paying until the 1990s. We only paid off debt from the Battle of Waterloo in the 20th century.

We could not run the state at all under your reasoning.

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.

OP posts:
Tomikka · 29/07/2026 19:22

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 18:27

That's subtly different from what I'm saying.

In my suggestion, from tomorrow, no-one gets a DB pension. All contributions go into individual DC pots.

In theory, this should cost the exact same amount as what the government is paying today, if they're funding them properly. As you say, it's just a different way of organising pensions.

However, if a future government, or more precisely if future taxpayers, decided that they didn't want to spend £55bn on pensions anymore, currently they don't have options. The people who've retired on DB pensions can't realistically have them taken away.

Let's say there's a war or something in 50y time and suddenly every penny is needed. The government of the day can't decide, okay let's fire some of the teachers, we need everyone to go and either be in the army or be a nurse (or whatever).

But they can't, because they're still stuck paying for teachers who retired 20 years ago. They're paying the deferred compensation owed by a long-gone government with different priorities.

Your main assertion is wrong.
Future governments are not bound by past governments on public sector pensions, they can change pensions and have done so over the years

I have been a civil servant since the 80s and have three separate pension schemes, and I will have an option under the McCloud judgement/remedy (this is based on a legal challenge to the enforced migration of staff between revised pension terms)

Civil Service pensions are covered by legislation passed through parliament, and this is why I have 3 separate pension schemes
My initial pension is a final salary based scheme and latest is an average salary based scheme

Any government can change the pension scheme by changing the legislation through parliament

nocoolnamesleft · 29/07/2026 19:21

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:11

If the voters of tomorrow decide that control of that waterway is critical to the nation's security and vote for that party, sure, why does the TA have a right to permanent employment forever even when there are other priorities?

I don't know what this has to do with my point, which is that I believe governments should pay the full value of the worker's work today, not tomorrow. Argue some other time about whether we pay TAs well enough or if they have adequate job security or if they're compensated appropriately for working in dangerous classrooms etc etc. But whatever number the government today thinks is fair, they should pay them that right now and not promise that someone else will pay half of it in the future.

But you're ignoring that many of us have already received lower pay for decades on the promise of our pension. And those pensions have already been raided and made less attractive. Unilaterally.

Blushingm · 29/07/2026 19:20

JulietteHasAGun · 29/07/2026 18:25

There’s no recruitment problem. Newly qualified nurses, midwives, physios, etc currently are unemployed because the Trysts can’t afford to employ more staff. So they certainly can’t afford to pay 20% more.

The money being paid now by employees and employers doesn’t benefit them though, it’s benefiting the current pensioners. There is no pot

Are you also aware that for example the 1995 NHS pension scheme is very different from the 2015 scheme

hallie8936 · 29/07/2026 19:18

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:11

If the voters of tomorrow decide that control of that waterway is critical to the nation's security and vote for that party, sure, why does the TA have a right to permanent employment forever even when there are other priorities?

I don't know what this has to do with my point, which is that I believe governments should pay the full value of the worker's work today, not tomorrow. Argue some other time about whether we pay TAs well enough or if they have adequate job security or if they're compensated appropriately for working in dangerous classrooms etc etc. But whatever number the government today thinks is fair, they should pay them that right now and not promise that someone else will pay half of it in the future.

The thing that’s flawed with your second paragraph is that you make it sound like the current government is getting away with paying less to workers today by forcing a future government to pay them more later, you seem to be forgetting that the current government is also paying for previous generations. Much more generously than future generations will get I will add.

Gwenna · 29/07/2026 19:17

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 18:14

Several people have made this point.

There are two scenarios.

  1. The government of today has enough money right now to pay all the teachers of today. It is paying their salaries, and it's contributing an appropriate amount of money into an investment account for the future to fund all their pensions too. They have the money, so if they wanted to, they could equally well pay no pensions and pay a higher amount of salary today. Potential teachers would be equally happy with this because it would have the same benefit to them (they could use the extra salary they get to fund a private pension and be just as secure).

OR

  1. The government of today does not have enough money to pay for the teachers of today. It's paying them low salaries, and then promising them that some future government will pay them the rest later. They don't have the money, so they're not funding an investment pot for the future, they're just hoping for the best.

Which one do you think it is? You clearly can't think it's #1, because that wouldn't have an impact on teacher recruitment.

There’s plenty of money in the system, OP - you’re looking in the wrong direction.

Blushingm · 29/07/2026 19:17

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:11

If the voters of tomorrow decide that control of that waterway is critical to the nation's security and vote for that party, sure, why does the TA have a right to permanent employment forever even when there are other priorities?

I don't know what this has to do with my point, which is that I believe governments should pay the full value of the worker's work today, not tomorrow. Argue some other time about whether we pay TAs well enough or if they have adequate job security or if they're compensated appropriately for working in dangerous classrooms etc etc. But whatever number the government today thinks is fair, they should pay them that right now and not promise that someone else will pay half of it in the future.

I’m not sure you quite understand pensions

Blushingm · 29/07/2026 19:15

The thing is though - the government don’t manage the pensions do they?

And would it be fair to all those people who gave paid in to change their scheme when they’ve already signed up? Theyd get to 66 - you decide their pension is illegal - what do they do if they retire at 67?

Public sector pays lower salaries but better benefits. You’ve chose to work in the private sector for the short term gain.

You’ve chose just sound slightly jealous

socialdilemmawhattodo · 29/07/2026 19:12

DeftGoldHedgehog · 29/07/2026 17:40

What's with the anti-pension campaign on the boards today?

That's what I ve been wondering. More people need to save more themselves for their future. My DC, early 20s, have no belief they will ever get a state pension.

fromthegecko · 29/07/2026 19:12

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.

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.

Wait, what? You think it would be fine for an incoming government to cease all pension payments to 70 year old retired public sector workers? That's not how pensions work.

Gwenna · 29/07/2026 19:12

fishbowlee · 29/07/2026 17:43

country is broke!

Not because of working people and pension recipients past, present, and future….!

OneAmberFinch · 29/07/2026 19:11

NeverDropYourMooncup · 29/07/2026 18:55

So you would be happy for somebody working as a TA or school support staff and paying contributions for x years to suddenly find out 'oh, no, can't afford to pay you anymore, we have somebody to invade for oil/water/control over a waterway'? They wouldn't have received the higher pay you think would be given to them and not teaching staff/SLT/COO & CFO salaries (and schools do not have to give support staff rises if they don't want to already), but they could suddenly be told 'nah, you're on your own now' with rent and bills to pay.

If the voters of tomorrow decide that control of that waterway is critical to the nation's security and vote for that party, sure, why does the TA have a right to permanent employment forever even when there are other priorities?

I don't know what this has to do with my point, which is that I believe governments should pay the full value of the worker's work today, not tomorrow. Argue some other time about whether we pay TAs well enough or if they have adequate job security or if they're compensated appropriately for working in dangerous classrooms etc etc. But whatever number the government today thinks is fair, they should pay them that right now and not promise that someone else will pay half of it in the future.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread