More years drawing a pension than contributing?
Discussion
I am NEVER going to get to retire.
The house is now paid for, though. So unless we move and need a mortgage again for a while we'll be building up savings. We both earn far more than we spend but we're not public sector...
We don't have kids so I'm not planning on leaving anything much...
The house is now paid for, though. So unless we move and need a mortgage again for a while we'll be building up savings. We both earn far more than we spend but we're not public sector...
We don't have kids so I'm not planning on leaving anything much...
Don said:
I am NEVER going to get to retire.
The house is now paid for, though. So unless we move and need a mortgage again for a while we'll be building up savings. We both earn far more than we spend but we're not public sector...
We don't have kids so I'm not planning on leaving anything much...
I too doubt I will get to retire. However, my house isn't paid for, we seem to spend more than we earn, and we do have kids...The house is now paid for, though. So unless we move and need a mortgage again for a while we'll be building up savings. We both earn far more than we spend but we're not public sector...
We don't have kids so I'm not planning on leaving anything much...
So count yerself lucky!
WindyMills said:
A related article was recently posted on another forum that I visit.
The comments ranged from "They deserve to have it taken away" to "Once they become the minority of voters, they'll be fubar'd" and included "oh boo hoo, it's so unfair".
Am I the only one who thinks about what I should be doing instead? i.e. upping my contribution.
With a lifetime limit of £1m you can't even get close to a gold-plated public-sector pension.The comments ranged from "They deserve to have it taken away" to "Once they become the minority of voters, they'll be fubar'd" and included "oh boo hoo, it's so unfair".
Am I the only one who thinks about what I should be doing instead? i.e. upping my contribution.
Not even close.
Unless you can show me figures that prove otherwise?
loafer123 said:
Is the value of public sector pensions also capped?
They would be covered by the same lifetime allowance rules https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/...loafer123 said:
Is the value of public sector pensions also capped?
I believe there is an upper limit on value of a person's accrued fund. My GP (also a neighbour) retired early because he'd hit some sort of upper limit. I can hear him right now, decimating the value of his house under the guise of "home improvements". He's happy though 
s3fella said:
The only people I know who have done or are planning "early" retirement, ie in their 50's are public sector workers, and all are couples where both work in public sector. Now that is not to say that all the public sector people I know take early retirement or are planning to.
I'm planning to retire at 55 and the only public sector work I've done is a stint in the forces with only 6 years qualifying for pension (so very small).I've invested and worked towards it as a goal.
Someone I work with is retiring at 40, but to be fair he is moving to a very cheap country where is money will go very far.
98elise said:
I'm planning to retire at 55 and the only public sector work I've done is a stint in the forces with only 6 years qualifying for pension (so very small).
I've invested and worked towards it as a goal.
Someone I work with is retiring at 40, but to be fair he is moving to a very cheap country where is money will go very far.
That friend should think long and hard about that - more often than not the grass isn't greener and you'd be depriving your kids a UK education and living standards which you yourself gainedI've invested and worked towards it as a goal.
Someone I work with is retiring at 40, but to be fair he is moving to a very cheap country where is money will go very far.
98elise said:
s3fella said:
The only people I know who have done or are planning "early" retirement, ie in their 50's are public sector workers, and all are couples where both work in public sector. Now that is not to say that all the public sector people I know take early retirement or are planning to.
I'm planning to retire at 55 and the only public sector work I've done is a stint in the forces with only 6 years qualifying for pension (so very small).I've invested and worked towards it as a goal.
Someone I work with is retiring at 40, but to be fair he is moving to a very cheap country where is money will go very far.
The DI and headteacher mentioned at the beginning of the thread on pensions of more than £28k each can only achieve these incomes through the contributions of others.
So often, people defend 'taking' by saying 'well, I paid in my whole life'
But they don't accept that they didn't pay in but a fraction of what they're taking out and that there may be an element of injustice in that.
The headteacher (primary) was 72, so I'm guessing retired (female so at least) 7 years on more than £28k.
Life span for a woman could easily hit the late 80s or more with free NHS care and prescriptions and winter heating allowance and old age pension ont top.
Let's be wildly speculative, and giver her 20 more years + 7 already lived on £28k and the same again for her partner, although he'll possible have a shorter lifespan but may have retired earlier.
The headteacher may have worked the full 40 years but not all as a headteacher and a lot on less than £28k.
How many years to police have to work before retirement on full whack?
There's no way either of them contributed anything like what they are taking out and there's no way they could have contributed enough to get those incomes.
That's a lot of other people's money.
Gareth1974 said:
loafer123 said:
Is the value of public sector pensions also capped?
They would be covered by the same lifetime allowance rules https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/...'Notional' multiple of pension is 20 for DB schemes, real world multiple is more like 30...
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 25th August 14:21
LordHaveMurci said:
My neighbour is a retired D.I. or similar, retired last summer in his early 50's.
4 bed det. house paid for, bought a new car & takes a few holidays each year. He has just started doing a bit of P/T work, mainly to keep him sane but also to top up their holiday funds & help their kids out financially.
He complains that they can't afford to buy a decent house in their prefered Cornish location, I'm tempted to suggest he gets a f
king job until he's in his 60's like the rest of us, sure he could afford it then!
A friend did 22yrs in the RAF, left on full pension in his mid 40's & got a civvie job doing pretty much the same thing but without Det's to Afghanistan etc. He'll work until his (large) mortgage is paid off then probably semi retire on his £20k ish RAF pension.
Retired in his early 50s did he? From the police? 4 bed det. house paid for, bought a new car & takes a few holidays each year. He has just started doing a bit of P/T work, mainly to keep him sane but also to top up their holiday funds & help their kids out financially.
He complains that they can't afford to buy a decent house in their prefered Cornish location, I'm tempted to suggest he gets a f
king job until he's in his 60's like the rest of us, sure he could afford it then!A friend did 22yrs in the RAF, left on full pension in his mid 40's & got a civvie job doing pretty much the same thing but without Det's to Afghanistan etc. He'll work until his (large) mortgage is paid off then probably semi retire on his £20k ish RAF pension.
Edited by LordHaveMurci on Thursday 25th August 12:47
It is odd that on PH, where the cry of jealousy is oft heard, we don't hear it when people complain about someone with a better pension than theirs.
When I joined the police, if I'd had another child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. But I still paid 11.5% of gross into a pension. In fact it was much more than that and the figure is merely base.
Wages were cut because of a good pension, by 5% or so. In other words the contributions were 15.5%. But that was not all. The pay cut went for overtime as well, so all the extra hours I worked, and for years I was working all but three days a month, I took an additional cut in pay, the majority of my income in fact, to pay for my pension being so good.
I was headhunted once and my pension contributions explained to me in a simple way. The figure they used was around 18%.
I would have got a better pension if I'd gone with them and been promoted once. I'd also have share options, bonuses and more. But I chose to stick with the police because of the pension, not because it was better - it was worse that what I was offered - but because of the way the pension was run. It ensured that if I'd left the police at that time, all I'd get back would be my contributions: no interest. The pension was designed to stop police officers leaving at 5-8 years, where there was a 50% wastage.
A good pension, but one that cost. If you wanted to work for low wages for years, to be stuck in a job financially, and then moaned at by the use of way off the mark stats, then it was open to you. But you chose another job, and now want to moan.
I'm ex police. I retired in 2005 and since then have been working in my own little business. I also wish houses were cheaper in Cornwall. As for his house being paid for, he no doubt took out a 25-year mortgage that most of us were limited to back in those days. If he's got a full pension then he's worked for more than 25 years. So what's the problem with it being paid for?
Derek Smith said:
Retired in his early 50s did he? From the police?
It is odd that on PH, where the cry of jealousy is oft heard, we don't hear it when people complain about someone with a better pension than theirs.
When I joined the police, if I'd had another child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. But I still paid 11.5% of gross into a pension. In fact it was much more than that and the figure is merely base.
Wages were cut because of a good pension, by 5% or so. In other words the contributions were 15.5%. But that was not all. The pay cut went for overtime as well, so all the extra hours I worked, and for years I was working all but three days a month, I took an additional cut in pay, the majority of my income in fact, to pay for my pension being so good.
I was headhunted once and my pension contributions explained to me in a simple way. The figure they used was around 18%.
I would have got a better pension if I'd gone with them and been promoted once. I'd also have share options, bonuses and more. But I chose to stick with the police because of the pension, not because it was better - it was worse that what I was offered - but because of the way the pension was run. It ensured that if I'd left the police at that time, all I'd get back would be my contributions: no interest. The pension was designed to stop police officers leaving at 5-8 years, where there was a 50% wastage.
You've been corrected on some of these claims previously. Please don't repeat the same claims which are directly contradicted by the publicly available scheme documentation...It is odd that on PH, where the cry of jealousy is oft heard, we don't hear it when people complain about someone with a better pension than theirs.
When I joined the police, if I'd had another child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. But I still paid 11.5% of gross into a pension. In fact it was much more than that and the figure is merely base.
Wages were cut because of a good pension, by 5% or so. In other words the contributions were 15.5%. But that was not all. The pay cut went for overtime as well, so all the extra hours I worked, and for years I was working all but three days a month, I took an additional cut in pay, the majority of my income in fact, to pay for my pension being so good.
I was headhunted once and my pension contributions explained to me in a simple way. The figure they used was around 18%.
I would have got a better pension if I'd gone with them and been promoted once. I'd also have share options, bonuses and more. But I chose to stick with the police because of the pension, not because it was better - it was worse that what I was offered - but because of the way the pension was run. It ensured that if I'd left the police at that time, all I'd get back would be my contributions: no interest. The pension was designed to stop police officers leaving at 5-8 years, where there was a 50% wastage.
Derek Smith said:
A good pension, but one that cost. If you wanted to work for low wages for years, to be stuck in a job financially, and then moaned at by the use of way off the mark stats, then it was open to you. But you chose another job, and now want to moan.
A good pension of course, and while you paid in a decent amount, the taxpayer paid in more. Much more. Let's not try and deny that (again).Derek Smith said:
Retired in his early 50s did he? From the police?
It is odd that on PH, where the cry of jealousy is oft heard, we don't hear it when people complain about someone with a better pension than theirs.
When I joined the police, if I'd had another child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. But I still paid 11.5% of gross into a pension. In fact it was much more than that and the figure is merely base.
Wages were cut because of a good pension, by 5% or so. In other words the contributions were 15.5%. But that was not all. The pay cut went for overtime as well, so all the extra hours I worked, and for years I was working all but three days a month, I took an additional cut in pay, the majority of my income in fact, to pay for my pension being so good.
I was headhunted once and my pension contributions explained to me in a simple way. The figure they used was around 18%.
I would have got a better pension if I'd gone with them and been promoted once. I'd also have share options, bonuses and more. But I chose to stick with the police because of the pension, not because it was better - it was worse that what I was offered - but because of the way the pension was run. It ensured that if I'd left the police at that time, all I'd get back would be my contributions: no interest. The pension was designed to stop police officers leaving at 5-8 years, where there was a 50% wastage.
A good pension, but one that cost. If you wanted to work for low wages for years, to be stuck in a job financially, and then moaned at by the use of way off the mark stats, then it was open to you. But you chose another job, and now want to moan.
I'm ex police. I retired in 2005 and since then have been working in my own little business. I also wish houses were cheaper in Cornwall. As for his house being paid for, he no doubt took out a 25-year mortgage that most of us were limited to back in those days. If he's got a full pension then he's worked for more than 25 years. So what's the problem with it being paid for?
It's interesting to get those percentages - very informative and helps with context but more useful if you know what the actual income is.It is odd that on PH, where the cry of jealousy is oft heard, we don't hear it when people complain about someone with a better pension than theirs.
When I joined the police, if I'd had another child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. But I still paid 11.5% of gross into a pension. In fact it was much more than that and the figure is merely base.
Wages were cut because of a good pension, by 5% or so. In other words the contributions were 15.5%. But that was not all. The pay cut went for overtime as well, so all the extra hours I worked, and for years I was working all but three days a month, I took an additional cut in pay, the majority of my income in fact, to pay for my pension being so good.
I was headhunted once and my pension contributions explained to me in a simple way. The figure they used was around 18%.
I would have got a better pension if I'd gone with them and been promoted once. I'd also have share options, bonuses and more. But I chose to stick with the police because of the pension, not because it was better - it was worse that what I was offered - but because of the way the pension was run. It ensured that if I'd left the police at that time, all I'd get back would be my contributions: no interest. The pension was designed to stop police officers leaving at 5-8 years, where there was a 50% wastage.
A good pension, but one that cost. If you wanted to work for low wages for years, to be stuck in a job financially, and then moaned at by the use of way off the mark stats, then it was open to you. But you chose another job, and now want to moan.
I'm ex police. I retired in 2005 and since then have been working in my own little business. I also wish houses were cheaper in Cornwall. As for his house being paid for, he no doubt took out a 25-year mortgage that most of us were limited to back in those days. If he's got a full pension then he's worked for more than 25 years. So what's the problem with it being paid for?
When I worked in the NHS in the 80s, I was on under £5000 for the first 3 years so £400 ish a month - pension contributions were compulsory - no idea what they were but 15% would have been hard although - what's that? £60? sounds like nothing.
I bought a house that cost £14,500 on that salary. The house was in a s
t area but over £100k today so someone with no deposit like me would need nearly £30k to buy it today - you don't get that starting in the NHS today.
The worrying think for any existing DB pensioner or deferred is that rules might be changed by govt so that to enable ongoing schemes their pensions are reduced for the greater good.
Your lifestyle may be planned out but then boom everything changes.
It is a shame all companies had to offer Career average pensions or some such version - but price the base salary accordingly. So it would be all new employees to start with and then a route to change for existing staff.
The auto enrolment pension is a bit of a farce - anyone earning under a certain level and it's probably £30/year. Which makes keeping those pension providers up to date with addresses etc non viable as £0.65 stamps or calls would wipe that out.
Your lifestyle may be planned out but then boom everything changes.
It is a shame all companies had to offer Career average pensions or some such version - but price the base salary accordingly. So it would be all new employees to start with and then a route to change for existing staff.
The auto enrolment pension is a bit of a farce - anyone earning under a certain level and it's probably £30/year. Which makes keeping those pension providers up to date with addresses etc non viable as £0.65 stamps or calls would wipe that out.
sidicks said:
You've been corrected on some of these claims previously. Please don't repeat the same claims which are directly contradicted by the publicly available scheme documentation...
The conceit!You know so much. You also know that government figures can be trusted implicitly.;
I've pointed out how my pension contributions were calculated, all available in the documentation of the enquiries. But you've read someone something that suits your point of view and you will continue to spout it.
I've been corrected by someone who doesn't want to know.
All my figures are correct as far as they go. But they are, in fact, worse as I haven't included everything.
Sorry to upset you, but I am right.
footnote said:
I've no objections to pepole being able to retire early in principle, as long as their retirement isn't obscenely funded by the contributions of others who will never, ever get the same level of benefit.
Few people in the private sector make anything like the level of pension contribution that police officers and teachers do. My late dad retired from the fire brigade 30yrs ago and I remember when he was working he was paying 11% from a salary that didn't have a lot of spare in it. I think they pay around 15% now.footnote said:
The DI and headteacher mentioned at the beginning of the thread on pensions of more than £28k each can only achieve these incomes through the contributions of others.
So often, people defend 'taking' by saying 'well, I paid in my whole life'
But they don't accept that they didn't pay in but a fraction of what they're taking out and that there may be an element of injustice in that.
The headteacher (primary) was 72, so I'm guessing retired (female so at least) 7 years on more than £28k.
Life span for a woman could easily hit the late 80s or more with free NHS care and prescriptions and winter heating allowance and old age pension ont top.
Let's be wildly speculative, and giver her 20 more years + 7 already lived on £28k and the same again for her partner, although he'll possible have a shorter lifespan but may have retired earlier.
The headteacher may have worked the full 40 years but not all as a headteacher and a lot on less than £28k.
How many years to police have to work before retirement on full whack?
There's no way either of them contributed anything like what they are taking out and there's no way they could have contributed enough to get those incomes.
That's a lot of other people's money.
The pension is part of their package though - some PHer's are in the habit of adding the value to their annual salary whenever there's a discussion about public sector workers.So often, people defend 'taking' by saying 'well, I paid in my whole life'
But they don't accept that they didn't pay in but a fraction of what they're taking out and that there may be an element of injustice in that.
The headteacher (primary) was 72, so I'm guessing retired (female so at least) 7 years on more than £28k.
Life span for a woman could easily hit the late 80s or more with free NHS care and prescriptions and winter heating allowance and old age pension ont top.
Let's be wildly speculative, and giver her 20 more years + 7 already lived on £28k and the same again for her partner, although he'll possible have a shorter lifespan but may have retired earlier.
The headteacher may have worked the full 40 years but not all as a headteacher and a lot on less than £28k.
How many years to police have to work before retirement on full whack?
There's no way either of them contributed anything like what they are taking out and there's no way they could have contributed enough to get those incomes.
That's a lot of other people's money.
And if you want to be pedantic about it even the contributions they make are other people's money as their whole package it tax-payer funded. Even the tax they pay!
My issue with it is they don't all get the level of pension quoted - my missus is and ex-civil servant and gets £260/mth pension.
Derek Smith said:
sidicks said:
You've been corrected on some of these claims previously. Please don't repeat the same claims which are directly contradicted by the publicly available scheme documentation...
The conceit!You know so much. You also know that government figures can be trusted implicitly.;
I've pointed out how my pension contributions were calculated, all available in the documentation of the enquiries. But you've read someone something that suits your point of view and you will continue to spout it.
I've been corrected by someone who doesn't want to know.
All my figures are correct as far as they go. But they are, in fact, worse as I haven't included everything.
Sorry to upset you, but I am right.
If so, would you consider that a return that reflects your contributions + investment return or do you consider that your pension income is additionally being topped up by the contributions of others?
If no, ignore the above.
Derek Smith said:
LordHaveMurci said:
My neighbour is a retired D.I. or similar, retired last summer in his early 50's.
4 bed det. house paid for, bought a new car & takes a few holidays each year. He has just started doing a bit of P/T work, mainly to keep him sane but also to top up their holiday funds & help their kids out financially.
He complains that they can't afford to buy a decent house in their prefered Cornish location, I'm tempted to suggest he gets a fking job until he's in his 60's like the rest of us, sure he could afford it then!
A friend did 22yrs in the RAF, left on full pension in his mid 40's & got a civvie job doing pretty much the same thing but without Det's to Afghanistan etc. He'll work until his (large) mortgage is paid off then probably semi retire on his £20k ish RAF pension.
Retired in his early 50s did he? From the police? 4 bed det. house paid for, bought a new car & takes a few holidays each year. He has just started doing a bit of P/T work, mainly to keep him sane but also to top up their holiday funds & help their kids out financially.
He complains that they can't afford to buy a decent house in their prefered Cornish location, I'm tempted to suggest he gets a f
king job until he's in his 60's like the rest of us, sure he could afford it then!A friend did 22yrs in the RAF, left on full pension in his mid 40's & got a civvie job doing pretty much the same thing but without Det's to Afghanistan etc. He'll work until his (large) mortgage is paid off then probably semi retire on his £20k ish RAF pension.
Edited by LordHaveMurci on Thursday 25th August 12:47
It is odd that on PH, where the cry of jealousy is oft heard, we don't hear it when people complain about someone with a better pension than theirs.
When I joined the police, if I'd had another child I could have claimed supplementary benefit. But I still paid 11.5% of gross into a pension. In fact it was much more than that and the figure is merely base.
Wages were cut because of a good pension, by 5% or so. In other words the contributions were 15.5%. But that was not all. The pay cut went for overtime as well, so all the extra hours I worked, and for years I was working all but three days a month, I took an additional cut in pay, the majority of my income in fact, to pay for my pension being so good.
I was headhunted once and my pension contributions explained to me in a simple way. The figure they used was around 18%.
I would have got a better pension if I'd gone with them and been promoted once. I'd also have share options, bonuses and more. But I chose to stick with the police because of the pension, not because it was better - it was worse that what I was offered - but because of the way the pension was run. It ensured that if I'd left the police at that time, all I'd get back would be my contributions: no interest. The pension was designed to stop police officers leaving at 5-8 years, where there was a 50% wastage.
A good pension, but one that cost. If you wanted to work for low wages for years, to be stuck in a job financially, and then moaned at by the use of way off the mark stats, then it was open to you. But you chose another job, and now want to moan.
I'm ex police. I retired in 2005 and since then have been working in my own little business. I also wish houses were cheaper in Cornwall. As for his house being paid for, he no doubt took out a 25-year mortgage that most of us were limited to back in those days. If he's got a full pension then he's worked for more than 25 years. So what's the problem with it being paid for?
He worked 20+ years in a job, did well & got promotions, worked hours & under stresses that most people wouldn't do. I'm sure they made sacrifices to pay their mortgage off, I'm sure they wanted to achieve that goal before he retired & their income dropped massively.
I was merely contributing to the thread that is about drawing more years pension than contributing, something that he will hopefully achieve.
Sorry if I have offended you, I notice you have no comment on my RAF friend?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff