to not trust the unions or the government re public sector pensions

[bonded]

With even more fire person and NHS strikes that affects us all I want to be informed on the subject. But I don't trust either of them.

Is there anywhere with a balanced view?

I don't want fire people working till they are 68 but at the same time an average earning fire person having a 400k pension pot doesn't sound affordable.

Mild-mannered pension geeks rule! Stokes, I think that the design you talk about would work, apart from the no increases in deferment bit. Bit unfair on those who change jobs, or take time out from paid employment - unless it was a truly universal scheme, so that no-one had a deferred pension, just one that moved from employer to employer. Something like SERPS, in fact...

Yeah I'm a fan of revaluation, and indeed increases in retirement. I guess that's normal coming from the pensions world as it is now. His point was that people move jobs so often now, that deferreds are often the biggest section of membership and so employers end up with massive obligations to people who left service long ago, before their pension even confess into payment. I don't think the current CPI with 2.5% cap is too expensive. But then if you find yourself adding in nice things like that you could very quickly find yourself with a 1/60 final salary scheme!

I think part of the issue in private schemes is that tax rules harshly punish schemes funded in excess of liabilities, so historically employers have had to take pension payment holidays. This prevents the long-term (40 years) smoothing on inputs and returns we are aiming for.

Most public sector pensions including fire brigade pensions and teachers pensions are unfunded. That is to say contributions go into the pot with all other taxation, and pensions are paid out from the same pool. When people have described them as being "self-funding" they mean that the contributions received in a year are sufficient to pay the pensions due to be paid out in the year.

However, the government would obviously prefer to be in a position where the contributions received exceed the pensions paid as then the "surplus" could be used for other purposes.

caroldecker Employers took holidays because they wanted to boost their profits. There is no punishment for over-funded pension schemes.

Tbh I don't think any pension you pay into is guaranteed, it never has been whether private or public.
There are far better ways to provide for a pension without putting money into something that might not pay out.
Bricks and mortar are usually a sound investment and guaranteed. Unless of course you sell the house early, or when the market isn't good.

theposterformallyknownas Two things make pensions a very good way of providing for retirement. Firstly, the employer makes a contribution so you don't have to provide it all yourself (assuming you are an employee of course), and secondly you and the employer both get tax relief on your contributions.

GrandPoppy

I know it seems a good idea if you are employed, but I lived through years of seeing people lose everything entrusting their money into schemes.
So we thought it wasn't worth the risk, so didn't start one.
Our pensions are protected in bricks n mortar.

GrandPoppy It's gone now but there used to be a limit on how well funded a pension scheme could be back when refunds of surplus were more common. When I worked as an actuary, we used to have to certify that our schemes weren't funded above a certain level on a prescribed set of assumptions. If they were deemed to be overfunded, action had to be taken to address this.

Oh Cornish, how times have changed! Now we spend so long valiantly trying to get schemes as close to fully funded as possible!