Alright For Some!!!!

[-SharonA-]

The civil servant responsible for increasing the state pension age to 67 is Retiring at 61 with a £1.8 million pension pot. He will receive £85,000 a year and a lump sum of £245,000
He's the secretary for the Department for Works and Pensions
His name: Sir Robert Devereux.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-robert-devereux-plans-to-retire-as-dwp-permanent-secretary-in-january

[aelmpvw]

i don't know how he's going to scrape by ...

[-Talbot-]

You're a bit late with this news aren't you?

[Zacs-Master]

Good for him.

[vulcan42]

To show solidarity with his fellow workers he could at least worked until he was 67.

[-SharonA-]

Talbot, I am a slow reader!!! :-)

[THECORBYLOON]

He's the Permanent Secretary and not the Secretary of State for DWP. He didn't introduce the increases in retirement ages nor did he bring forward the dates they would be imposed. Those changes would have been instigated by the Chancellor not DWP.

[New Judge]

The pension that Sir Robert will be entitled to is a "final salary" employer's scheme. Presumably he earns about £160k pa and is entitled to a lump sum of one and a half times that sum and a pension of half that sum. All standard stuff with the amounts being related to his final salary and his lifetime salary determining the contributions he has made.

By contrast the State Pension scheme is not a pension scheme at all. It is a flat-rate payment made almost regardless of contributions. Leaving aside the requirement to have made NI contributions for a minimum number of years, a person who has earned (say) ten times the average salary throughout his life gets the same "pension" payment as somebody who has earned only just enough to make NI payments. There is no real link between contributions made and payments received. Further than that, somebody who has made no contributions whatsoever will receive more in payments made after retirement age than somebody who has worked for most of their life but failed to achieve the minimum number of NI contributing years. This is because they will be guaranteed a minimum payment which is at least equivalent to (and, depending on their circumstances, often higher than) the basic State Pension. They may well receive more than Sir Robert and his State Pension will form part of his taxable income and will therefore be subject to income tax, whereas the person dependent solely on the State payments will have no deductions made.

It is important to understand the difference between these two things.

[sp1814]

Goof for him. This will be the same for anyone who has paid into a private pension or is in a company pension scheme. Surely you would only have to work until you were 67 if you have neither of these?

[naomi24]

SP, that sounds about right.

[Togo]

In the meantime EU worshiper Hammond wants to plunder the pensions of those who have contributed to their own well being, but is keen to fork out billions in the Brexit dance to pay the gold plated pensions of Eurocrats. Meehh.

[albaqwerty]

'In the meantime EU worshiper Hammond wants to plunder the pensions of those who have contributed to their own well being,'

isn't that a bit maxwell-like?

He can get his grubby paws off my pension pot, I've got plans for it.

[wolf63]

The civil service awarded me retirement at the age of 40, nice lump sum and ongoing pension.

It wasn't, I will admit, as much as Sir Whotsit got

[Old_Geezer]

Indicates he was making the rules with little understanding of the consequences. Unsurprised.

As for his pension, sure he's entitled to have what he's paid in for at the time agreed. So do those on/anticipating the agreed State pension.

The other issue there is how anyone can really be such an asset to society that they are able to win such reward. And of course, they can't. It's all about how much undeserved reward you can agree with the other overpaid, who have power to ok your salary/perks, for whatever it is you actually do.

[Peter Pedant]

// By contrast the State Pension scheme is not a pension scheme at all. //

o god that has to be written by a civil servant
probably in receipt of a final salary pension scheme which none of us have or can aspire to

[New Judge]

"o god that has to be written by a civil servant
probably in receipt of a final salary pension scheme which none of us have or can aspire to"

I'm not a civil servant, Peter. Anyone who works for a company which offers a final salary pension scheme can have one. Yes, they are fewer in number now but that's mainly the fault of successive politicians (of all parties) for failing to ensure the circumstances which allows them to prosper prevail.

Anyway, enough of that. Perhaps you could explain how the State "Pension" scheme bears any resemblance to schemes which usually attract that title. Don't misunderstand me. I've no objection to the State shelling out cash to people who have reached retirement age if that's what people want. What I find hard to understand is how, under the current arrangements, they can term such payments as a "pension".

[Old_Geezer]

Pension by definition http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pension

"An amount of money paid regularly by the government or a private company to a person who does not work any more because they are too old or have become ill"

[fender62]

so people who have never worked or did very little on and off work, say worked for two or three yrs their whole working life, get the same pension as someone who has worked there whole life from 16 onwards ?

[Old_Geezer]

Paid out of the public purse like any other benefit. Strange thing is the way government likes to claim it is funded. That could do with an overhaul, and admit it is a right to a citizen of the right age, rather than something folk pay into for themselves.