NHS Pension (Sorry)

[Deva Link]

Pulse said:

Thanks for that. I appreciate it.

My problem is that it was very good. It's now getting more expensive per month (£30 more per month for me), and it's then going to change to 'average salary'. When this happens, would your view change?

Just a general comment:

My daughter works in the NHS and is a similar age to the OP and she's just moved up a band so her contribution percentage goes up as well as obviously paying more as she earns a bit more, so the monthly cost takes a bit of jump, £50 or so. She won't opt out, but she's pretty unhappy at having another £50 taken out of her salary

She reckons half the people she works with have opted out, which is just terrifying. Some say they simply can't afford it and others think by the time they retire the scheme will have been watered down so much it'll be worthless, even if it still exists at all.

If people don't think it's worth being a member of the NHS pension scheme, what hope is there that the rest of population will pay into pensions?

[sidicks]

Deva Link said:

If people don't think it's worth being a member of the NHS pension scheme, what hope is there that the rest of population will pay into pensions?

The Unions have a lot to answer for.

They should be encouraging their members to stay in the scheme by focusing on the tremendous benefits that are provided for relatively small contributions.

[otherman]

sidicks said:

Deva Link said:

If people don't think it's worth being a member of the NHS pension scheme, what hope is there that the rest of population will pay into pensions?

The Unions have a lot to answer for.

They should be encouraging their members to stay in the scheme by focusing on the tremendous benefits that are provided for relatively small contributions.

+1. The nhs pension, even after the proposed changes, is one of the best financial investments in the world. And yet people still think they're being conned and might be better leaving. The red top papers have a big part in this, they print negative pension stories every week. Its almost like they want people to be poor in retirement.

[fandango_c]

Deva Link said:

Just a general comment:

My daughter works in the NHS and is a similar age to the OP and she's just moved up a band so her contribution percentage goes up as well as obviously paying more as she earns a bit more, so the monthly cost takes a bit of jump, £50 or so. She won't opt out, but she's pretty unhappy at having another £50 taken out of her salary

She reckons half the people she works with have opted out, which is just terrifying. Some say they simply can't afford it and others think by the time they retire the scheme will have been watered down so much it'll be worthless, even if it still exists at all.

If people don't think it's worth being a member of the NHS pension scheme, what hope is there that the rest of population will pay into pensions?

Your daughter and her colleagues should spend some time understanding the value of their pension scheme benefits (and not relying on the union to do so). Then they would realise that they couldn't afford too not remain a member.

If your daughter is unhappy about paying an extra £50 a month now and leaves the scheme, then she will be a lot, lot more unhappy when she wants to retire and finds out she can't afford to retire.

If people don't think it's worth being a member of the NHS pension scheme, then they've not done any thinking.

[The Leaper]

Always remember that for the past 20 years or so union officials are media motivated, and that's all. They just want to be seen on the TV, in the press, having a go at an employer or politician etc, without any thought of the effects on their protestrations on their membership. Regretfully, the membership tends to believe instantly what they are fed without any interrogation, which is something unions desperately rely on. And, no, I'm not politically motivated in any direction.

R

[Deva Link]

otherman said:

+1. The nhs pension, even after the proposed changes, is one of the best financial investments in the world. And yet people still think they're being conned and might be better leaving. The red top papers have a big part in this, they print negative pension stories every week. Its almost like they want people to be poor in retirement.

I think NHS employees reckon they're being conned because the scheme keeps changing. It's changed twice in the last few years and a Doctor on the previous page reckons it's changing again in 2015.

How can NHS employees in their 20's have any confidence about a pension scheme they may not be able to fully access for 50 years?

[sidicks]

Deva Link said:

I think NHS employees reckon they're being conned because the scheme keeps changing. It's changed twice in the last few years and a Doctor on the previous page reckons it's changing again in 2015.

How can NHS employees in their 20's have any confidence about a pension scheme they may not be able to fully access for 50 years?

1) Typically accrued benefits are unchanged, even if future accrual is amended - that seems entirely fair.

2) Things change - this happens in the private sector too - live with it!!!

Sidicks

[fandango_c]

Deva Link said:

I think NHS employees reckon they're being conned because the scheme keeps changing. It's changed twice in the last few years and a Doctor on the previous page reckons it's changing again in 2015.

How can NHS employees in their 20's have any confidence about a pension scheme they may not be able to fully access for 50 years?

As has been mentioned before, changes only affect future accrual, and not past accrued benefits. How is that conning NHS employees?

[Deva Link]

sidicks said:

1) Typically accrued benefits are unchanged, even if future accrual is amended - that seems entirely fair.

Someone in their 20's won't have accrued much.

sidicks said:

2) Things change - this happens in the private sector too - live with it!!!

Well yes, but that another race to the bottom comment.

It does link to another point that it's entirely feasible the NHS won't exist in the long term, or at least its staff will work for outside providers.
To move up as my daughter has just done means leaving her current job and working for a JV between an entirely remote trust and a private company who together are providing the service that she works in.
The way this was done was, to my mind, outrageous. The local NHS Trust interviewed them and then placed them with one of three providers - she very nearly ended up working for a charity and it was only when she explicity pressed the point that they admitted the employment would be completely outside the NHS.

[fandango_c]

Deva Link said:

Someone in their 20's won't have accrued much.

And their accrued benefits won't be changed, regardless of how much they have accrued.

Deva Link said:

Well yes, but that another race to the bottom comment.

Not really from the perspective of the taxpayers who are paying for the exceptionally generous NHS pension scheme (post change), who couldn't dream of having access to such a valuable benefit.

[Welshbeef]

This thread really does highlight that those with these great pensions don't understand how pensions work what the deal they have is.

Also that the unions are criminal in the way they "support/look out for the masses needs".
Firstly they never stare the change is for future not what has been earnt so nothing has been lost

Secondly they always bang on about how well funded it is even though there is no fund its simply the current pensioners payments are equal or less than the live employees payments - which is a cash flow statement not a statement or provisions less future liabilities as there is no fund.

Thirdly the unions always use the "it's not a race to the bottom" and they assume such a statement will motivate a private sector employee to be more accepting to the public sector - um think again. I've sadly wasted a umber of beers in the pub hearing this nonsense. Yet they know its unaffordable hence private sector have changed so they get much much less yet they have this rather odd stance that now that a private sector employee has taken such a hit they should then have to pay more in higher taxes for a public sector pension payment! The response you get then is well you could choose to work for the private sector it's all choice - to which I end the conservation well your members have the choice too and if you think generally wages are higher in private sector than public well sorry it's not GBrown saw to that with huge pay rises to public sector.

[fandango_c]

Welshbeef said:

This thread really does highlight that those with these great pensions don't understand how pensions work what the deal they have is.

Spot on.

Welshbeef said:

Also that the unions are criminal in the way they "support/look out for the masses needs".
Firstly they never stare the change is for future not what has been earnt so nothing has been lost

Yes, communication from the unions regarding pensions is misleading at best.

Welshbeef said:

Secondly they always bang on about how well funded it is even though there is no fund its simply the current pensioners payments are equal or less than the live employees payments - which is a cash flow statement not a statement or provisions less future liabilities as there is no fund.

Spot on again.

Welshbeef said:

Thirdly the unions always use the "it's not a race to the bottom" and they assume such a statement will motivate a private sector employee to be more accepting to the public sector - um think again. I've sadly wasted a umber of beers in the pub hearing this nonsense. Yet they know its unaffordable hence private sector have changed so they get much much less yet they have this rather odd stance that now that a private sector employee has taken such a hit they should then have to pay more in higher taxes for a public sector pension payment! The response you get then is well you could choose to work for the private sector it's all choice - to which I end the conservation well your members have the choice too and if you think generally wages are higher in private sector than public well sorry it's not GBrown saw to that with huge pay rises to public sector.

Sadly, this is spot on as well.

[otherman]

One of the key problems with selling pensions is the its in the human psyche to want jam today over jam tommorow, even if the deal is very highly weighted to the future. You can offer people £10 in their hand right now vs £100 in 3 years many will take the money today.
I think this is why people (egged on by the media doing the same) are calling auto-enrolment a 'pay cut' when its actually increased pay.

[Deva Link]

fandango_c said:

Not really from the perspective of the taxpayers who are paying for the exceptionally generous NHS pension scheme (post change), who couldn't dream of having access to such a valuable benefit.

They could if the Government legislated that private employers had to provide a similar pension.

The bummer for taxpayers is they get hit 3 ways: They have to pay for public sector pensions, they have to pay for everyone else who didn't bother paying for a pension, or who never worked etc, and they get a crap pension themselves. Brilliant!

[fandango_c]

Deva Link said:

They could if the Government legislated that private employers had to provide a similar pension.

You're proposing an increase in labour costs of 20%+ for private sector employers....?!?

Do you really think that's a feasible idea?

[Deva Link]

fandango_c said:

You're proposing an increase in labour costs of 20%+ for private sector employers....?!?

It wouldn't need to cost 20% overall as there would a saving through not having to pay benefits to, and support, people who didn't have any pension provision.

fandango_c said:

Do you really think that's a feasible idea?

Is it reasonable that the taxpayer is subsidising companies who don't make proper pension provision for their employees? At least put everyone on an equal footing - either everyone has a private pension or no-one (including the public sector) does. Then the State can pay equal pension to all retirees, wherever they were employed.

[carreauchompeur]

Interesting topic. I work in the Police and know of numerous people talking about leaving the scheme which is truly crackers.

I do wish the Fed would man up and distribute the projected pension deficit tables, puts the current cuts into perspective. A MASSIVE black hole...

[fandango_c]

Deva Link said:

fandango_c said:

You're proposing an increase in labour costs of 20%+ for private sector employers....?!?

It wouldn't need to cost 20% overall as there would a saving through not having to pay benefits to, and support, people who didn't have any pension provision.

It will cost employers 20%+ (that's assuming that wages don't drop). Employers don't pay out state benefits.
And the material reduction in state benefit payments would only happen 10 or more years into the future.

Deva Link said:

fandango_c said:

Do you really think that's a feasible idea?

Is it reasonable that the taxpayer is subsidising companies who don't make proper pension provision for their employees? At least put everyone on an equal footing - either everyone has a private pension or no-one (including the public sector) does. Then the State can pay equal pension to all retirees, wherever they were employed.

Private sector employee make their own consumption choices. They choose to save for retirement or not to do so, not their employers. However, they don't get to choose if they subsidise public sector pensions.

Making everyone have or not have a private pension obviously doesn't put people on an equal footing. Different contribution levels & alternative pension provision, or different employer benefits.

[otherman]

carreauchompeur said:

Interesting topic. I work in the Police and know of numerous people talking about leaving the scheme which is truly crackers.

I do wish the Fed would man up and distribute the projected pension deficit tables, puts the current cuts into perspective. A MASSIVE black hole...

The police scheme like so many other public service ones is unfunded, the concept of deficit doesn't really apply. Deficit = total liability to pay pensions / total assets saved up to pay them. In the case your scheme the total money saved to pay = zero so the defecit is infinite if expressed as a %age in the normal manner of funded scheme defecits.

[Deva Link]

otherman said:

In the case your scheme the total money saved to pay = zero so the defecit is infinite if expressed as a %age in the normal manner of funded scheme defecits.

Just the same as the State pension.