Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

Bit I imagine a guaranteed amount on retirement, and not dependent on how the investment of contributions perform ?

Yes, the money is not invested.

[STEMO]

Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.

I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?

If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc

[Rangie]

Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.

I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?

If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc

. 


Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided  + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃

[STEMO]

Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.

I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?

If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc

. 


Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided  + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃

Ssshhhhh Mick, people get very wound up about such things....

[Rangie]

Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.

I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?

If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc

. 


Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided  + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃

Ssshhhhh Mick, people get very wound up about such things....

. 

Don't worry I've got broad shoulders ! Forgot to mention our generous state pension as well  Steve, downside is I still pay a lot of income tax ..😅😅😅

[LC0112G]

Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.

I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?

If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc

. 


Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided  + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃

Ssshhhhh Mick, people get very wound up about such things....

If that's referring to me, then I have no problem with public sector workers receiving the pension that they were promised at the point they were 'paying' for it. There are many coppers who were in the military earlier in their careers - and no doubt that applies to prison officers too. They have done the job they were paid to do and IMV are entitled to the benefits they were promised too.

Where there is a problem is the assumption that the conditions that apply when you join the public service should remain unaltered until you retire. The recent changes to public service pensions (roughly) doubled the contributions required from the member, and the accrual rates and ages at which you could draw them generally increased. This definatley made them less 'valuable', but they are still near-zero risk, not linked to investment returns, with a return roughly double what you can expect to receive in the private sector. So in simple terms yes they are half as valuable as they used to be, but still double what you'll get elsewhere. They're now 18ct Gold plated vs 24ct Gold plated.

There was a time where a Police officer earned one years pension for each year worked for the first 20 years, and then 2 years pension for each year worked for the next 10 years. The maximum accrual was 40 'years' pension, but an officer only needed to work 30 years to earn the full 40 years pension. So an officer joining at (say) 20 years old could retire at 50 on a full pension. The recent changes have stopped all that, and it's that change which many resent.

As for the employer contribution, that's basically just an accounting gimmick - one arm of the govt passing money to another arm of the govt. The only purpose appears to be that the Police authorities have to keep a cap on the number and pay of officers because they have to pay back some of the money they receive from HMG back to the treasury.

[STEMO]

No, it wasn't referring to you in the slightest. Can't see why you'd think it would 

[STEMO]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

[Rangie]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

.   


A fitness test was introduced for Prison Officers who joined after or around 2002 I believe, which they have to pass annually, a high percentage will not be able to pass this as there is no age concession so they will be natural wastage downgraded to OSG or found a position of civilian grade.

[LC0112G]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

[STEMO]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Like?

[STEMO]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

I missed firefighters off, sorry. Now that is a physical job.



I think something has got to be put in place before 2026 when the transition ends. People will become ineffective/dangerous in their jobs trying to hang on as long as possible for fear of losing a large part of their pension.

[Lizzie Zoom]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Indeed.  One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55.  As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed.

[LC0112G]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.

Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.

There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.

Like?

Like any job that over 50's currently do.

[LC0112G]

The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.

I missed firefighters off, sorry. Now that is a physical job.



I think something has got to be put in place before 2026 when the transition ends. People will become ineffective/dangerous in their jobs trying to hang on as long as possible for fear of losing a large part of their pension.

It shouldn't be "a fear of losing a large part of their pension". It should be working out what you are going to do for the final 15 years of your working life before you retire rather than assuming wrongly that the tax payer is going to fund your retirement from 50.

If you want to retire at 50 then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you.