Is your work pension any good?

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 01 May 2012  |  Comments 14 comments

Work pensions are an increasingly endangered species. We show you how to size up your pension scheme.

Is your work pension any good?

Since the late Nineties, occupational (workplace-based) pension schemes have been under attack as employers cut their costs. This has led to many organisations curbing or even closing altogether their pension schemes.

However, this 'withering' of pension schemes has taken place almost exclusively in the private sector.

Two decades ago, most large private sector employers offered final salary pensions to new joiners. Today, the vast majority of these schemes have been shut down to new joiners. Now only one in nine (11%) of the UK's 23 million private sector workers belong to schemes paying final salary pensions. 

On the other hand, more than nine in ten public sector employees get gold-plated pensions.

How good is your scheme?

When moving job or changing employer, it's important to check your future pension entitlements. In fact, after your basic salary (and bonus, if you get one), the most important factor to consider when weighing up a job offer is the pension you'll get.

This is because pensions are simply future pay, so not joining a good pension plan is like turning down a pay rise -- every year, for life. Here's what to look for in a pension scheme...

Final salary (defined benefit) schemes

Final salary plans are the 'gold standard' of pension schemes.

The joy of a final salary scheme is that the employer takes all of the investment risk and longevity risk (how long you'll live), while promising you a pension based on your years of service and salary on retirement.

Alas, thanks to their sky-high running costs, these have all but died out in the private sector. Even so, some generous employers still offer final salary pensions to new joiners, including Tesco and the John Lewis Partnership (owner of John Lewis and Waitrose).

Career average schemes

In order to reduce the ongoing cost of running guaranteed pension schemes, many employers have switched from final salary to career average payouts. In other words, your pension isn't linked to the peak salary you earned in your final year, but is based on the average wage throughout your service.

Obviously, this leads to lower payouts, but hardest hit are higher-paid employees and those who received strong salary increases during their careers. Nevertheless, better an open career average scheme than a closed final salary plan.

Accrual rate

A typical final-salary scheme offers an 'accrual rate' of 1/60th. In other words, for each complete year of membership, you earn another 1/60th of your wage as a pension. So a career lasting 40 years would get you 40/60ths (two-thirds) of your final salary as your starting pension.

In some cases, accrual rates are 1/80th, so working four decades would earn you a pension worth half of your salary. However, the most generous schemes -- usually open only to directors, top executives and senior managers -- can offer accrual rates as high as 1/30th. In these schemes, just 20 years of service would earn you a guaranteed pension worth two-thirds of your final salary.

Lump sum

As well as a pension based on your income and years of membership, some final salary pension schemes -- notably in the public sector -- provide lump sums linked to your length of service.

For example, your scheme may have a pension accrual rate of 1/80th, plus 3/80ths towards a lump sum. So after 40 years, you'd get half your wage as a pension, plus 120/80ths as a lump sum, worth 1½ times your yearly salary.

These lump sums are a very valuable benefit and should never be overlooked when comparing schemes.

Retirement age

If you're lucky, your scheme will have a lower-than-average retirement age. Most private sector pensions have a normal retirement age of 65 for men and women. However, more generous schemes do allow retirement at 60 (or earlier, if due to ill health or redundancy).

In the public sector, most schemes have a normal retirement age of 60 (55 for the Armed Forces), but the Government is pushing to raise this to 65 for most of its employees.

Non-contributory

A few lucky individuals -- including members of the Armed Forces -- are members of non-contributory pension schemes. What this means is that they don't pay a penny into their pensions, as their benefits are provided solely by contributions from their employer (usually the taxpayer).

Non-contributory, final salary pension schemes are as rare as hen's teeth these days, so if you ever get the opportunity to join one, then do so without delay.

'Death in service' cover

Another valuable benefit provided by many corporate pension plans is life insurance, known as 'death in service' cover. Typically, this will give you, say, three to four times your salary if you die in service.

In most cases, your employer pays the premiums for this insurance, so it's free to you. What's more, as these policies are written 'in trust,' they are paid to a deceased employee's beneficiaries free of all taxes. So if you have this cover, then make sure your 'expression of wishes' form is up to date. Otherwise, your lump sum from life insurance could be paid to an ex-spouse, for example!

Inflation linking

Defined benefit schemes lift your pension payments each year, usually in line with inflation. While most still link to the RPI (Retail Prices Index) measure of inflation, many schemes are switching to the lower CPI (Consumer Prices Index). This means that, all else being equal, RPI-linked pensions are more valuable than CPI-linked pensions, as the RPI rises faster than the CPI.

Defined contribution schemes

Having reviewed defined benefit schemes, now let's look at their inferior alternative: defined contribution or money purchase schemes. How big these pensions get depends on four things:

  • How much your employer pays in (the higher its yearly contributions, the better);
  • How much you pay in (your yearly contributions);
  • Your investment returns over time (the higher, the better); and
  • The fund's charges (the lower, the better).

Let's briefly look at the first two factors:

Your employer's contributions

Ideally, you want your employer to be as big-hearted as possible by footing most of the bill for providing you with a retirement income.

Some generous employers pay a flat percentage of your pay into your pension, even if you don't contribute a penny. In some cases, this no-strings payment could be 10% or even 15% of your before-tax salary.

However, many employers prefer to match your contributions £1 for £1, known as 100% matching. For example, you pay in 5% of your salary and your employer pays in another 5%.

Your contributions

As well as contributing according to a "You pay X%, we pay Y%" formula, you can also make additional contributions to your workplace pension. The advantage of doing this is you get tax relief at your highest tax rate.

For a basic rate taxpayer, a £100 pension contribution costs £80, thanks to 20% tax relief. For a higher rate (40%) taxpayer, a £100 contribution costs £60. For those earning over £150,000 and thus paying 50% tax, a £100 contribution costs a mere £50.

Therefore, paying an extra, say, 5% of your wage into a pension could cost you just 4%, 3% or even 2.5% of your pay, thanks to tax relief. This explains why many people pay additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) into their occupational pensions

More on pensions:

How to retire like a Welshman

Death to over-50s life plans!

Why most pension savers lose

How to make a pensions complaint

New top pension for retirement savers!

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (14)

  • trav1
    Love rating 5
    trav1 said

    As I understand it, many public sector pensions are moving from final salary to career average (my contributions will be close to 400% higher in 2015 than they are now if that makes you feel any better), but don't let that get in the way of a good story. Probably means that journos will have to remove the surgically attached "gold-plated" from the front of any reference to public sector pensions too, although then again...

    Report on 30 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • stevereverett
    Love rating 3
    stevereverett said

    Another big employer is the railway industry. This still has a 40/60 contribution final salary pension. It's currently RPI linked and you can retire early.

    It's assests are around £26B.

    Report on 30 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 149
    MK22 said

    Hmm, nice to see an evenly balanced article. Sorry, that should read "It would be nice to...." Gold plated pensions indeed, most public sector workers earn so little their pension isn't even painted with gold coloured paint! Yes the high earners get a lot, but that isn't like industry? As to DB scheme having high costs, compared with the charges for running a DC scheme they are dirt cheap.

    What has rung the death knell of DB schemes is the totally ludicrous ways of valuing assets and liabilities that bear no relationship to real assets and real liabilities, that have been forced on them by idiot accountants and governments. As a result employers have been frightened into thinking they can't afford a DB scheme.

    Sadly that's lies perpetuated by accountants. Actually what firms can't afford is for their employees not to have a DB pension. Because if they don't, pensioners will have no money left after paying for food, power and housing, and British industry will go down the pan (even further). Sadly I know of no economist or accountant who understands this. So your children and mine are going to be very poor in their old age, whilst their employers live in the lap of luxury. Bring on the revolution I say.

    Report on 30 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Offa
    Love rating 40
    Offa said

    If I had a pound for every time I heard 'gold plated' with reference to my local government pension I would be richer than I am now!

    Why must the pension provison be a race to the bottom? That is how it seems to me. The country is in a complete mess when you cannot be given the means to look after your retirement with dignity and security. The next step will have to be the Workhouse.

    I retired in 2009 with my final salary LG scheme which Cameron then nibbled away in 2010 by delinking to RPI and linking to CPI - just to allow his money printing to impoverish me.

    Then he limits the age allowance - affects my wife not me- he really hate pensioners and of course prefers them to die at pension age to not become a burden on the Treasury or the NHS.

    People should be protesting at the lack of proviosn for old age - it seems to miss people by . I am well off really but not as well off as I thought I would be with inflated petrol prices, energy prices and bl**dy airfare prices!

    So I reckon a lot of folk are going ot be very, very , uncomfortable in their old age- just warning you- sorry.

    Better form a new political party- the only way out I reckon.

    Report on 30 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • John Bucklebury
    Love rating 1
    John Bucklebury said

    Saving for your old age should be a basic part of any life plan. As we all know many just do not think in the long term. Unfortunately the pension funds were crushed under the short sighted tax raids from the financial illiterate Brown. Thus justifying the view of many that it is not worth saving at all.

    As to the term "Gold plated". The term does apply to the public sector in many areas. Two examples.

    My existing self employed pension pays £4000 pa index linked for each £100,000 in the fund. A teacher with 40 years service earning £35k can expect to retire on £17k, I and many ordinary people would need a fund of £425,000 to equal that of the teacher's - which is completely impossible to generate in the real world. Check the teaching pension site for confirmation.

    Graham Paddick, an ex senior policeman and prospective London Mayor candidate, who retired at age 49 is on a £63,000 pa pension, he also received a MASSIVE tax free lump sum. His pension I believe is almost impossible to achieve in the private sector as there is a limit to the actual pension fund size allowed.

    The average private sector pension fund is £32,000, thus providing an index linked pension of just over £1,200 pa. So please excuse my feelings to those who complain about the term gold plated pensions

    Report on 30 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    Why is it, that people who choose to substantiate the offensive term 'gold-plated' always cite examples from the higher paid end of the public sector ? The fact is, the majority of public sector employees can now expect to receive a pension of less than £10,000 pa; if anyone terms that 'gold-plated' I question their objectivity. Remember: public sector employees have never enjoyed: Xmas bonuses, free Xmas parties, subsidised share issues, private health care plans et.c. et.c.

    Report on 01 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • h27gooner
    Love rating 8
    h27gooner said

    It's interesting that the furore surrounding public sector pensions has only come to prominence since the recession bit. No one in the private sector seemed to care when they were getting above inflation pay rises, corporate memberships, share dividends, company cars etc etc. the green eyed monster is a terrible thing. But, take heart because your desire to ruin the retirement of a number of public sector employees including teachers, firefighters, police and nurses has found favour with the government. The fact is though that the extra contributions now being paid by public sector employees and their soon to be diminished pensions mean less money to be spent by them in shops, travel agents, restaurants and other private sector industries. So, on that basis we are all losing income. Hopefully, in your clamour to the bottom you will also see your own business suffer cos let's face it - we re all in this together, after all.

    Report on 01 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • John Bucklebury
    Love rating 1
    John Bucklebury said

    In reply to ECLKWRIG's statement of:

    "the majority of public sector employees can now expect to receive a pension of less than £10,000 pa". In 2011 the Hutton Report stated that the actual average public sector pension is £7,800 pa. Please note this is index linked and therefore equals a pension fund nearing £200,000.

    From my post above :

    The average private sector pension fund is £32,000, thus providing an index linked pension of just over £1,200 pa. This figure can be confirmed elsewhere on this site.

    So please excuse my feelings to those who complain about the term public sector gold plated pensions. I am pretty sure which group of pensioners should be feeling offended,

    Report on 01 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    Interesting, is it not, that there are still those who deem an average pension of £7,800 pa to be a lot ?

    Report on 02 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • John Bucklebury
    Love rating 1
    John Bucklebury said

    Sadly ECLKWRIG's position all too readily ignores the pension issues all of us face and merely attacks those pointing out the obvious.

    If a £7,800 public sector pension is not "a lot", how would he define the £1,400 pension of the private sector?

    In the private sector we do have lack of communication concerning the amount that is required to fund retirement. But the saving of a large lump sum is not helped by the tax on pension saving applied by Labour, currently running at £5 billion pa in receipts.

    Whilst the public sector hold ever tighter to benefits that in 2011 cost the UK £32 Billion per year and provide a standard of living unattainable to the ordinary worker.

    The obvious way out of the current mire is higher saving by all concerned and later retirement. Not a popular plan, but the existing two speed (less pejorative) pension structure is not fit for purpose.

    Report on 02 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    "Sadly", John Bucklebury's stance reveals his ambivalence towards the public sector, indeed, some might say, a callous disrespect exemplified by his clear desire to inflict yet more misery on under-valued public sector workers. Shame on you ! Doubtless, JB applauds, what is effectively, collective punishment inflicted on public sector workers for the failings of the speculators in the private sector. JB should actually be applauding public sector workers for years (30+ years in my own sector) of pay restraint; whilst bankers, investors and speculators were awarding themselves tax-avoiding bonuses et.c. the majority of public sector employess were repeatedly awarded the absolute bare minimum. The fact is, Lord Hutton's report on pensions actually accepted that the Local Government Pension Scheme "was sustainable". The previous government attacked public sector pensions; the unions, to their credit, accepted that some change was necessary and that change was ultimately realised, (presumably JB applauded the public sector then ?????????? I think not !). That being the case, why is the public sector being targeted yet further to again pay for the failings of the private sector ?

    It is about time people like JB showed some respect for the under-valued public sector workforce. Given the low pay culture endemic in the public sector, just how can "higher saving" be achieved; presumably JB is advocating higher wages then ????

    Report on 04 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • John Bucklebury
    Love rating 1
    John Bucklebury said

    In reply to ECLKWRIG

    Bankers - I refer you to your own comment about citing examples from the higher paid end of the sector.

    Pay in the Public Sector – I refer you to the 2010 ONS Report on Pay. The average Public Sector figure was £23,660, whilst the Private Sector worker was found to be earning £ 21,528. The average Public Sector worker was therefore in 2010 receiving a higher salary by £2,132 pa.

    Also in 2010 the private sector endured almost no increase in income; once again the Public Sector led the field with an average increase of 3.8% in the three months to November 2010. Source ONS.

    The Final version of the Hutton Report reported on how to make all Public Sector Pensions sustainable. Refer to “The Deal” in the Hutton Report; Source HM Treasury

    As to respect, I have the highest respect for all those who work for a living and strive to achieve, in either the public or private sectors. Conversely; pejorative personal attacks, strident and hectoring responses to facts merely underline a poor argument that does not cover the issues at hand and is in itself disrespectful.

    You seem to have an interest in pensions and public spending. More information on matters financial can be found at the Taxpayers Alliance website, The Hutton Report, The ONS, UKpublicspending.co.uk and of course on here.

    Report on 04 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    Aha ! And now we have it !!! JB's mask has slipped; citing the 'Taxpayers Alliance' in defence of a weak, callous, still unerringly disrespectful conviction. the Taxpayers Alliance (TA) has one aim, to reduce taxes for the wealthy by minimising public spending, no matter what harm this inflicts on the majority.; If the TA had its way, public sector workers would all be voluntary, working for nothing in order that EVEN more tax breaks could be dished out by the economically illiterate Osborne to his rich chums. As for my comments on bankers, you will have surely realised by now that I was not citing them as the only example of private sector employees (unlike your own, limited observation of the public sector), I cited the bankers as the epitome of the greed and financial incompetence that conspired to lead the UK into a recession; now it would appear the fool that is George Osborne has allowed the country to re-enter a recession with his fiscal tom-foolery and yet he still manages to reward the rich.

    You claim that in 2010 the private sector endured "almost" no increase in income; your sentiments are revealingly tinged with some regret; ask yourself the question then, what it feels like to be a public sector worker who for over 30 years has "endured" year after year of minimal salary increases - (I note you choose the word "income", this, of course, ignores or deliberately masks the non-income sources of financial gain enjoyed in the private sector yet denied to public sector workers).

    I also note you have moved on from your pre-dilection for "higher saving" being the answer to our economic ills; presumably, your empirical research which apparently reveals the aveage public sector pay in 2010 was £23,660 pa (I wish !!!) has proved the nonsense of such an idea. I ask again: are you therefore advocating higher wages in the public sector to encourage saving ?

    I am sorry you interpret a reasoned debate on a public commenting forum as "hectoring" et.c., well, you know what they say........'if you can't stand the heat et.c.'.

    Chin chin

    Report on 05 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 149
    MK22 said

    As usual the comments are more interesting than the article. The problem with the "public sector" is that anything to do with salaries are skewed by people like judges and top consultants, etc rather than the thousands of nurses, dustmen, etc. Say "public sector" and people immediately think of dustmen and ignore the rest. Actually I'd much rather have a highly paid and so highly motivated judge or consultant (and the like) with a good pension than, say, a highly paid Chief Executive of Barclays Bank who has taken enormous bonuses for a fallen share price, pathetic dividends and a bank in hock to Dubai. But I accept I have a strange outlook on life.

    Report on 05 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply

ICICI Bank UK
HiSAVE SuperSavings Online Account

1.75% /
1.74%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels