RECOMMENDED WEBSITES
|
Know what a defined contribution scheme is? How about the FRS17 accounting rule? Wading through the wealth of information about pensions can be a confusing business - Kieran Wyatt sorts the fact from the fiction
The headline news isn't good - the stock market's in freefall, our pensions are practically worthless and we'll be lucky to be living in poverty when we retire.
With employers left, right and centre closing their well-funded final salary schemes to new employees - HSBC, BT, BA, Marks & Spencer and Halifax among them - workers are increasingly facing the prospect of joining poor occupational pension schemes or having to fund their own pension arrangements.
And to maker matters worse, the pensions options are confusing to such an extent that many people just don't bother. Yet the value of the basic state pension has been eroded since 1979 when the then Conservative government broke the link between increases in BSP and average earnings. To avoid a retirement blighted by poverty, workers need some sort of personal or occupational pension provision.
So read on for a quickfire guide to workplace pensions, personal pensions and state pensions - and hopefully be confused no more.
Final salary pension schemes
These schemes - also called defined benefit schemes - promise to pay members a pension at retirement based on their earnings at or near retirement. Thus you get a guaranteed level of pension linked to your salary no matter what happened with inflation, prices or earnings throughout your working life.
Credits are accrued for each year you've worked, usually on a one-sixtieth or one-eightieth basis. So, for example, if you've worked 30 years with the company and have a one-sixtieth scheme you'll get 30/60 (or half) of your final salary as an annual pension.
Both sides contribute to the scheme, with the split being roughly 5% from employee and 10-15% from employer. Most of the big public sector pension schemes - such as local government and teaching - are final salary based. However there are concerns - see right hand box - over proposals for pension payouts to be based on average earnings over an employee's lifetime rather than the last few years of service (when earnings are usually at their highest).
Defined contribution schemes
Unfortunately many employers are closing or have closed their final salary schemes. Many rather lame excuses have been given including the government's introduction of the Financial Reporting Standard 17 (FRS17) whereby companies will have to declare their scheme's surplus or deficit each financial year on their balance sheet.
But the reality is it boils down to money - employers want lower pension costs. The employers are moving towards so-called defined contribution schemes - also called money purchase schemes - because:
Only if employers can be committed to providing a decent level of contribution (minimum of 10%) can defined contribution schemes still deliver a decent pension.
Stakeholder pensions
Millions of workers do not have access to an occupational pension scheme. The low paid - and women especially - are much more likely to work in sectors where fewer employers provide occupational pensions. Yet the high upfront costs of personal pensions put many off starting their own savings scheme.
So the government introduced the stakeholder pension, targeted at those who do not have a regular income and those in occupational schemes on less than £30,000 a year who want to make additional contributions.
Unions, banks and insurance companies all provide stakeholder schemes. Employers with more than five employees must also provide access to a stakeholder although they are not obliged to make any contributions themselves.
Stakeholder pensions are flexible - contributions can be as low as £20 a month and can be stopped and started at any time - and cheap, with charges restricted to 1% of the value of the scheme.
State pensions
Government pension provision includes the basic state pension and the State Second Pension (S2P), which replaces the State Earnings-Related Pensions (SERPS) in April of this year. There is also the Minimum Income Guarantee which is basically income support for those pensioners relying solely on state pensions.
To get the maximum Basic Pension (currently £75 a week for individuals, £120 week for couples), you need a full National Insurance contributions record. Meanwhile in a few years the S2P will likely be a flat-rate payment only for the lowest paid.
And to complicate matters further, from October 2003 the new Pensions Credits will come into effect. This means-tested scheme will guarantee single pensioners £100 a week, and couples £154 a week.
Contact the article's author Kieran Wyatt
CRISIS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT?UNISON has warned that local government workers could face a significant reduction in pension benefits if they moved to a scheme based on career average earnings, rather than final benefit. The career average proposal is part of a government discussion paper released on the Local Government Pension Scheme. While UNISON welcomes the opportunity to discuss the future structure of the scheme, the union is seriously concerned that a move to a career average would lead to a pensions crisis in local government. UNISON head of pensions Glyn Jenkins said: “The possibility of moving from a scheme that bases benefit on final pensionable salary to a scheme based on career average runs the risk of a significant reduction of final benefit for many members. The scheme already has protections for part time employees and that is why so many have joined the scheme when they were allowed to. “The stark truth is that with the average pay of local government staff around £13,000 and the average pension in payment only £3,800, the Local Government Pension Scheme is not ‘gold standard ‘ but the minimum standard for those staff to avoid poverty in retirement. UNISON is also concerned that there may be a need to increase employee contributions. For many local government staff, five and six per cent contributions are a struggle. Increasing this for new employees would lead to many simply leaving the scheme. Jenkins added: “It is particularly disappointing that the announcement, while suggesting ways to increase flexibility for the scheme, appears to reinforce government inflexibility in dealing with the removal of discrimination against unmarried partners and some widows. “Savings gained because fewer people are marrying, mean the cost to remove the discrimination against unmarried partners is so small when offset against the savings that it would not increase employer contribution rates. Allowing retrospection would remove the discrimination against widows who married scheme members after retirement.” |
