MPs Pension schemes (& other text funded pension)

[HandlebarLadyTash]

Why are we not putting pressure on the government & councils to stop these schemes being publicly funded.
How can they justify these pension schemes when we are paying for them & so many other areas need the money.
The world of work & pensions has massively changed in the last 20yrs & it feels a bit like one rule for some & not for other. Many people are in low paid jobs without the pension perk of the gov propped up pensions. Also as they are accessible below the retirement age of 67 does that tot highlight how difficult is it for people to work until 67 without slowing down.

Please dont destroy me, educate me.

*Bloody typo although for the life of me cant see how I managed to get text when public would have been a better word

Do you mean pensions currently being claimed? Or pensions that people currently working in the public sector are building up?

I have a couple of friends of varying ages who work in the public sector and their pensions are no where near as good as they used to be.

YABU.

I do not work in the public sector and my current occupational pension is paltry. However, it isn't a race to the bottom.

I would like better pension arrangements for myself, but I do not resent other people getting decent pensions in the slightest.

There are pros and cons to working in the public sector. The pensions are one of the pros.

Are you talking about pensions solely for elected representatives or for civil servants, local government workers, NHS etc?

Also technically everyone's pension receives funding from the government due to tax relief.

Staff working in the public sector get lower salaries than their private sector peers. The reason they stay is that they generally get a half decent pension. And it’s a large organisation so good chance for promotion or to move internal departments using transferable skills.

Plus it was in their contract as their terms and conditions when they joined. You can’t just change terms and conditions Willy nilly.

Oh and they contribute to their pensions too. It’s not a free gift from their employer the way you seem to think it is. Most pay at least a hundred pounds a month in.

As for retiring at 60, most can’t nowadays. It was an old policy that aligned with the then retirement age. In future it will be that again as of now. If you want to go at 60 you would get a big whack taken off your pension and you wouldn’t get the full state pension till retirement age.

Oh and many public sector workers were contracted out so many not get the full state pension anyway.

It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom. Rich companies should be stopped from getting out of paying tax by loopholes, we should be hiring more tax inspectors and making laws to share the wealth more fairly and stop zero hours contracts etc.

I agree with Alexa. It’s not that public sector pensions are ludicrously indulgent, it’s that private sector pensions are very poor. In an ideal world there would be more incentives for saving into pensions for everyone instead of making them less attractive.

It’s not that public sector pensions are ludicrously indulgent, it’s that private sector pensions are very poor. In an ideal world there would be more incentives for saving into pensions for everyone instead of making them less attractive.
Excellent point

I think im asking about pensions that are paid by the taxpayer.

I dont begrudge anyone a pension & bloody hell we all work hard for them.
BUT THEN...
I look at MPs with their expenses frauds, payrises & safe pensions & grr
I look at the private utility company i work for, beholden to share holders that closed its final salary years ago & grr
Pot style pensions on a low salary is crap

No I agree it's not a race to the bottom.
I dont have the brains, talent or skills to find a new job with an amazing salary.
I cant see how I and other people in similar positions cannot be a burden in retirement.

I think im asking about pensions that are paid by the taxpayer

Like the state pension? I don't think getting rid of that is going to be a vote winner.

Private pensions are also tax-payer contributed.

Presumably you're also talking about NHS care assistants', nurses' and teachers' pensions?

@Elieza
“Staff working in the public sector get lower salaries than their private sector peers”

Is this actually true? Anecdotal here, but at the lower end of the pay scale and less skilled positions - it isn’t true to people I know. Also at that level the pension simply isn’t a draw to attract and retain people. This board shows that many people have no idea about their pension - so it can’t be what’s drawing them to the public sector or keeping them there.

IRL, I explained to a local authority solicitor (so - highly educated) that no, 1/49th did not mean she would get 1/49th of her pay as a one off payment on day of retirement - but ever year for life!

Again, it’s all anecdotal from MN and some other forums I’m on, and real life, but I don’t think it’s true for anywhere near all public sector workers that they’re there for the pension.

MP pension and expenses etc is very different to the care assistant paid just over minimum wage.

Don’t have it as a race to the bottom but yes review MPs expenses to ensure they’re fair.

@HandlebarLadyTash I think you really need to separate MP pension and expenses from more “everyday” public sector pensions paid to millions and promises to millions more.

On the latter, I think there’s a lack of knowledge about what each of the public sector schemes actually are. “Gold plated” is long gone - though they’re still gold plated in comparison to private sector - at least at the lower end of the income scale.

I’m not public sector, so not defensive with the gold plated comment!

MP pensions and perks are an exception to the rule. There are all sorts of interesting enhancements to their salaries, such as heavily subsidised meals, gyms, housing support, travel, staffing etc. They might not get their duck houses paid for these days but there are a lot of other little freebies. Not to mention the very generous handout an MP gets if they lose their seat.

The government should lead by example showing what a pension should be. Not as already said racing to the bottom.

Specifically on availability of the pension below 67… let’s be clear - you pay for it if you take it early.

One of the large public sector schemes is the LGPS (Local Government). The retirement age is tied to the State Pension Age - so 67 or even later.

If you request to take it age 60 you lose 29% of it! It’s really significant. So I don’t think you can say the scheme is expecting people not to work until 67/SRA - how many can afford that reduction of almost a third?

As far as I know, Military pensions are the only truly ‘unfunded’ ones, as in you don’t make contributions (or you didn’t years ago). That’s because most solidiers/sailors/airmen and women earn very little, relatively speaking.
Teachers etc. make very high contributions into their schemes, pretty sure my DD contributes 12%, it’s only right that the pensions are decent.

Surely the question should be why don't more private employers follow the very good example set by the state and place more emphasis on pension contributions over salaries in pockets?

@KeyboardWorriers that indeed is a very good question

This migh work... or not

amp.ft.com/content/9d9b03d0-55ff-4e2a-8ec7-2caab0a89381

@GenderApostatemk2 yes military pensions are non-contributory, sadly nothing like they once were though. I'm sure we've worked out my civil service pension is better (except that I contribute- but not a lot for what I get).

I agree op - public sector pensions cost a huge amount to the taxpayer and are ridiculously generous. I think we should move to dc pensions only.

@KeyboardWorriers private industry had to stop funding db schemes as they were so enormously expensive. Residual schemes are still bringing down businesses. Taxpayers need to get value for money from public services. There is no bottomless pit of money.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@KeyboardWorriers private industry had to stop funding db schemes as they were so enormously expensive. Residual schemes are still bringing down businesses. Taxpayers need to get value for money from public services. There is no bottomless pit of money.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure I read an article about how some universities pay out almost the same in pension payments as they do in salary of current staff.

With longer life expectancy there is clearly a need to move away from gold plated defined benefit schemes. Like the private sector has had to.

However, I don't begrudge public sector staff for their current defined benefit schemes. That, from what I've been told, involve fairly high employee contributions and are based on a percentage of your average salary rather than full final. Plus also involve working up to retirement age.

I am however jealous of public sector workers in my parents generation who retired on very healthy final salary pensions at 55-60.

I'm pretty sure I read an article about how some universities pay out almost the same in pension payments as they do in salary of current staff.

That's incorrect. Universities don't pay pensions, the pension scheme (USS, TSS or LGPA) pay them. They guarantee the USS one which is an accounting line but to date nothing has been claimed. Maybe the article was referring to employer contributions which are I think getting on for 30%