If you believe some people NHS pensions are gold-plated. In truth the average NHS pensioner receives around £6,000 per year. By the way, opponents of the public sector always state pensions based on how much the lifetime pot is, but that's only because a £90,000 pension sounds a lot more gold plated than £6,000 per year.
I'll be honest here, assuming I make it through to retirement in the NHS, then I will get a comfortable pension, but paying in a significant slice of my income (currently 6.5% of my salary that I pay, 14% more from the employer) for 43 years working full time should mean that I don't have to rely on the state to subsidise my pension. And that's the point, if NHS workers are lumbered with the shabby pensions that only seem to provide a good living for the pension fund managers then those NHS workers will have to live off means tested benefits.
So say an incoming Tory government got rid of the "gold plated pensions" who wins and who loses?
The NHS could take the opportunity to reduce the employers pension contribution some time in the future (it's the future because the existing pension contribution that we pay out now funds the existing pensioners and then the NHS pays for us later). Long term - taxpayer wins.
The pension won't pay out as much as it otherwise would. Long term - NHS workers lose.
But a lot of the loss will be made up by Pension Credit or whatever means tested benefit is out there. Long term - taxpayer loses
In the meantime pension fund companies charge administration fees and get their slice of one of the largest pension schemes in the world. Short and long term - Pension Funds win.
The effect to taxpayers will be marginal at best, it's just a simple transfer of money from public sector workers to the City of London masked by the Tory version of class warfare. It's typical from a party who treats politics as an opportunity to enrich the already fortunate in society.
YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 29, LAB 40, LD 9, UKIP 14
49 minutes ago