To think we can't afford the triple lock

Yes, exactly.

Accomodation is a personal cost which should come out of pension - as it should come out of income during working age.

The fact that it's given to some pensioners as an 'extra' is effectively the same as having a higher pension, part of which is means tested.

That’s contributions. The total pension cost of current workers and pensioners in the NHS is 25% of its total budget.

It isn't 25%, its more like 7%.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-02-26/HL5304/

The employer contributions rate is almost 25%, but that isnt the same as a portion of the NHS budget...

Hardly surprising when you consider that 75% of the NHS budget is staff costs. Obviously the 25% includes employer contributions for those still working. The average NHS pension in payment is roughly £7,300 to £10,000 a year. Hardly a king’s ransom.

Apparently a whopping 25% of the entire NHS budget is spent on pensions. That's utterly insane.

I find it interesting that only 12% of pensioner units received income from State Pension and state benefits only, yet 26% of pensioners recieve means tested benefits.
The difference will include things like housing benefits, which obviously are a situational need ("enough needed to reasonably live off" will vary a lot between a homeowner and a renter).

Public sector pensions are not the economic millstone you think they are. They are paid for by employer pension contributions of 16-21% of salary & 5-10% employee contributions. Current contributions pay for current pensions. It would be nice if all the contributions were managed like LG pension & invested but switching to that model is expensive as you still need to pay current pensioners while investing for future pensioners.

No, they won't.

And it's our children who will pay for that.

Which is what's unforgivable.

Good luck with that. No political party is sufficiently suicidal to even think of it.

Mandatory acceptance of new contracts for all existing public sector workers - and obviously new hires - with far lower pension entitlement from today, but with accrued benefit kept.

Public pension pay is now at least as high as private sector pay for equivalent roles. There's no excuse.

Then at least the liability will stop increasing - or rather the increase will slow down.

Fire and re-hire, and take the opportunity to massively reduce the civil service. It's spiralled in size and cost with no increase in output.

How would you propose changing it?

That doesn't make it OK.

My point answers the pp's question "Why the hate for public sector pensions"

It was ever thus. Every government has done it.

Most public sector pensions aren't fully funded.

The current UK government liability on unfunded public sector pensions stands at £1.40 trillion - and ever growing.

That's on top of the UK's £3 trillion national debt: it isn't counted as part of it.

So the government is basically hiding an extra 50% of gdp in debt which has been taken from our children's future to spend on consumption today (by building up future pension liability as renumeration for public sector work today).

It's unforgivable

Their paymasters, the unions, won't allow it.

Should be? yes.

Will be? Unlikely.

That would be completely out of character for Labour.

Why the hate for public sector pensions? The green-eyed monster is not an attractive look.

The Local Government pension as discussed by PP is fully funded i.e. the contributions from employer & employee are invested in stocks, gilts etc in the pension fund & there are no further payments needed from the government.

Well, yes, it’s those public service pensions that should be reduced/got rid of, not the state pension. I would put that as a priority.

I find it interesting that only 12% of pensioner units received income from State Pension and state benefits only, yet 26% of pensioners recieve means tested benefits.

So some pensioners have a personal pension in addition to state pension - or are still working - yet that still isn't considered 'enough' to live on.

Which definitely suggests that the state pension isn't too high!

And it means that the state pension (the money the government gives pensioners) is partly universal (the 'official' state pension) and partly a means-tested pension.

Working age people are given means-tested cash too, of course. About 19% of working age people get some means-tested benefits - so just a bit less than the means tested benefits for pensioners.

Yes - means tested benefits does include any extra money given to the pensioner by the state to contribute towards housing.

There's no practical difference to:
pension = universal state pension + means tested part of pension (aka means tested benefits)

Yes, but it'll be a defined contribution scheme, whereas public sector pensions are usually defined benefit schemes.

I don’t think that’s unusual at all. Eg, my employer puts in only 6% of my salary, which is the legal requirement, I think. They don’t match what I put in at all.

NHS pensions aren’t fully funded, they operate on the same funding model as the state pension. Fully funded means contributions go into a pension fund which is invested in the same way as a private pension. Local government pensions are in the latter category.

What do you mean by 'fully funded'? Surely all workplace pensions are fully funded. Unless you mean your payments were not matched by your LA as the employer? That would be very unusual.

This is pretty much it. Something that is unaffordable literally can't happen.

Arguing over whether it should continue to happen is pointless.

The only question is when it will stop, and by what mechanism.

I think the zealotry around the triple lock has a significant chance of producing a poorer outcome for pensions.

Since a lot of people (this thread as evidence) seem to equate removing the triple lock with removing pensions altogether, a political party may well decide to go for a scorched earth policy, rather than a compromise position where people surviving on the state pension alone might be given some additional benefits to make up for the loss of the triple lock.

Of course it might be that the politicians are not the ones who make the decisions. But I feel this scenario is unlikely.