Reply With QuoteSame position.
Always better in the scheme they scrapped if close to retirement.
If longer to go in post then it comes down to lump sums and early retirement terms.
Sent from my SM-G950F using TZ-UK mobile app
I think that the Government’s decision on pensions for the public sector given the legal outcome of the discrimination case is very good news for many of us approaching retirement within the public sector:
https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/n...n-schemes.aspx
As far as I can see, it means that when I get to 60 I can choose to have all my pension allocated in the final salary scheme rather than part in (up to 2015) and part out (i.e. within the career-average scheme post 2015). Alternatively I can choose to have the bit from 2015 in the career average scheme alongside the previous bit as the final salary scheme. I’m not sure exactly what £££ difference this will make but I’m pretty certain that I’ll be better off choosing to keep all the pension in the final salary scheme. It will be interesting to see how the modeling plays out when the Teachers' Pension website is updated with the appropriate calculators.
Anyone else looking at this and thinking that it is going to work out better for them?
Same position.
Always better in the scheme they scrapped if close to retirement.
If longer to go in post then it comes down to lump sums and early retirement terms.
Sent from my SM-G950F using TZ-UK mobile app
Originally Posted by jpjsavage
I think that's my understanding - logging onto TPS - they already seems to have made the adjustments?
I couldn't see the adjustments yet. I'd like to see a modeling of both potential outcomes. I'm looking to stop paying into the pension scheme in a few months and this will make quite a difference to my pension at 60 (in 8 years time).
For me (with 20 or so years to go) the pension age of 60 is key for me rather than state pension age...who knows where that will be in 20 years. If I can retire on what I signed up for which is 2/3 final salary I’ll be happy.
Public sector pensions is a great one for the bear pit
I know of nobody who works in the Public Sector that drives an AMG GT - choices, choices.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Whatever the merits or otherwise of public/private pension schemes, I think the main point here is that the Government had been found to have acted in a discriminatory manner and have been forced to rectify this.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
I was one who got some transitional protection and moved to Alpha a year or two after those without protection.
At the time I calculated my pension at 60 was almost the same as if I’d remained on Classic but the lump sum was a lot less.
Hopefully the judgement will result in that lump sum increasing to nearer what I expected.
Neither do I. I do however personally know people with public sector pensions and an Aston DB6, Mclaren 12C and a few Ferraris and probably lots more!
Back OT, my question regarding this new arrangement is presumably, pre 2015 of your pension scheme will be calculated on your final salary at retirement rather than your "final salary" in 2022 when you transition to the career average earnings scheme. I will have around 10 years in the pre 2015 scheme and maybe 25-30 years in the latter and would expect my salary to grow in that time so would be better off with the former version!
That's two pieces of good news for us, the other being the change in the annual allowance rules.
My point was that whilst working, it is unheard of - what people do when they retire and how they spend any commutation is (AFAIK) their affair?.
Public Sector pensions are often bashed - the older schemes perhaps worthy?, but contributions have hiked and retirement dates pushed back and schemes have had revisions. The OP has pointed out that this has been deemed unjust and hopefully amended.
Last edited by Chris_in_the_UK; 17th February 2021 at 23:20.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Not necessarily. The new scheme is actually more generous in the sense that each year you accrue 2% of salary rather than 1.25% under the old. If you remained at the same grade throughout your career you may be better off, although retirement age is no longer 60, it’s state pension age and there’s no automatic lump sum.
If you stayed the same grade for a large part of your career and got a few promotions later in your career you’d likely be much better off under the old final salary scheme.
One of these people has now retired (but had the DB6 whilst working), the other two are still working so your point isn’t really valid. There are some highly paid people with public sector jobs and others who have a public sector pension and income from other sources...
In my career salary slowly increases for around 10 years, jumps straight to a higher level and then slowly increases again after that (approximately). I think the best solution personally would be to have the early years in the final salary bit assuming the final salary the pension is calculated on is your final public sector salary then to have the CARE section on the other 30 years so you loose the lowest paid years from the average. I doubt you can have your cake and eat it to quite that degree though!
I know several people not government employees who have arbitrarily had their final salary schemes frozen as they are too costly to maintain, they have been offered other types of scheme going forward. I don’t understand what discriminatory means for teachers?
Then you need to read up on it. It was ruled discriminatory based on age due to the arbitrary age cut offs used to move some and not others.
It’s not the fault of public sector employees that those in the private sector no longer have final salary schemes.
As for the cars, not really sure what the relevance is. There are approx 5 million public sector workers, how many of them are driving Aston Martins and how many have to have their pay topped up each year to keep pace with Minimum wage??
Finally the average public sector pension is less than £10k a year from memory, something the Daily Mail readers seem to largely ignore as they get whipped up into a frenzy!
I think there was also discrimination in the Government's approach to different unions and their members. Some, e.g. firefighters, got preferential treatment in terms of how their pension schemes were restructured and others, e.g. teachers, did not. As with so many aspects of Government policy recently, they rushed in with little concern for the detail (or the law), ignored the advice of experts in the field, and things have come unstuck later on. Thankfully in this case there was a way to hold them to account and reparation is being made it seems.
Always the way with that lot. Shocked they didn't find a way to involve Harry and Meghan somehow or mention a "leggy display".
Personally I'm pleased for those public sector workers who benefit as the Govt has history in being found to have illegally implemented reduced benefits to public sector pensions and redundancy schemes, such as the recent scrapping of the £95k cap first introduced in 2015. Whilst there may be sound reasons for any changes, the key is in implementing them in a fair way rather than rushing them through so that they apply to employees about to be made redundant or retire. The times of genuine negotiations on such issues between the Govt and Unions is history, these are now replaced with consultations that result in the Govt (largely) doing what it wanted to at the outset.
On the issue of public sector pensions generally, yes they have historically been generous but it was part of the salary package which meant meet monthly pay was often lower. Furthermore, when the Govt changed the law to allow greater access to pension pots, it soon realised it didn't like the consequences for its own public sector pensions so quickly passed a law prohibiting public sector employees from those advantages. In terms of what can be left to descendants that's a huge disadvantage.
Posting Permissions
