I Bumped Into a Friend. What He Told Me About His Pension Should Concern Every Taxpayer
I was at a coffee shop recently when I ran into an old friend. He spent most of his career in construction: good money, long hours, the kind of work that leaves a mark on your body. We got chatting and he mentioned, almost in passing, that he’d moved into lecturing at a Further Education college.
He teaches around 24 hours a week – contact hours, not total working time – takes home about £600 a week, and freely admits it’s a step down in pay from construction. So I asked the obvious question: why do it?
“The pension,” he said, without a moment’s hesitation.
He told me he puts about £200 a month into his pension. Then he asked me to guess what the college tops it up by. I said £270 – already thinking that sounded incredibly generous, bordering on over the top. He shook his head.
Nine hundred pounds. The college adds £900 a month on top of his £200.
I’ll be honest: I didn’t believe him. I run a digital marketing agency – Flycast Media – that works almost exclusively with financial services firms, so I spend more time than most looking at financial data and how money actually moves around the economy. And still, £900 sounded like it had to be wrong. So I went home and looked it up.
It wasn’t wrong.
The numbers are real
Most teaching staff in FE colleges are enrolled in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) – a defined-benefit arrangement backed by the state. This isn’t a standard workplace pension where contributions go into a pot invested in funds. It’s a guaranteed income in retirement, calculated by formula, inflation-proofed for life, with the risk sitting with the taxpayer rather than the individual.
The employer contribution rate for TPS is currently 28.68% of pensionable pay – a figure confirmed by Teachers’ Pensions, which rose from 23.68% in April 2024. Employee contributions run at around 9-10% of salary on average, depending on income band. On a gross salary of around £37,000, the college would be paying roughly £10,600 a year – around £880-900 a month – straight into the scheme. So the broad scale of my friend’s figure was right, even if rough net pay and contribution estimates can vary depending on salary, tax code, and exact deductions.
The college doesn’t set this rate and can’t negotiate it. It’s mandated nationally. And since the 2024 rate increase, the Department for Education has been paying colleges a grant specifically to cover the higher employer contribution – meaning the real bill isn’t falling on the college at all. It’s falling on the taxpayer.
When I asked him whether it was a defined-benefit scheme, he wasn’t sure what that meant. He just knew the number. And honestly, can you blame him? If someone told you your employer was adding £900 a month to your pension for every £200 you put in, you probably wouldn’t spend much time worrying about the technical classification either.
The ‘£300,000 pot’ that isn’t a pot
My friend reckons 10 years in the job will leave him with the equivalent of a £300,000 pension pot. That overstates it, though there is still no actual pot. What he’ll have is a guaranteed, inflation-linked annual income – roughly £6,500-£7,500 a year in today’s money, depending on salary progression and revaluation, based on the scheme’s formula. To buy that kind of guaranteed income on the open market through an inflation-linked annuity, you’d more likely need something closer to around £150,000-£190,000 in capital at current rates, not £250,000-£300,000. So the original shorthand was too high.
The crucial difference is that in a private pension, that capital actually exists and is subject to market risk. In the TPS, the promise is backed by the state regardless of what markets do or how long he lives. It’s a fundamentally different – and fundamentally more valuable – kind of security. And the cost of underwriting that promise falls on everyone else.
Now multiply it across the whole public sector
FE colleges alone spend around £360 million a year on TPS employer contributions and around £240 million on the Local Government Pension Scheme for non-teaching staff – roughly 9% of the entire sector’s income, just on pension employer contributions.
Zoom out further and the numbers are hard to absorb. The exact national total depends heavily on the accounting method being used, so these figures need to be handled carefully. What can be said securely is that public sector pension promises amount to a very large long-term liability, while annual cash payments to pensioners are also substantial. For comparison, planned UK defence spending for 2025-26 is about £62.2 billion, while policing funding in England and Wales is around £19 billion.
The Institute of Economic Affairs has argued that even these figures understate the true cost – that the Government effectively keeps two sets of books on pension liabilities, with the real annual undeclared cost running some £57 billion above what’s officially reported.
Meanwhile, the private sector gets 3%
Under auto-enrolment, the minimum employer pension contribution in the private sector is 3% of qualifying earnings. Even genuinely generous private employers rarely go above 10%. The idea of your employer mandatorily contributing nearly 29% of your pay into a guaranteed, state-backed, inflation-linked pension simply does not exist in the private sector outside a handful of legacy schemes that have been closed to new members for years.
Two workers on the same £37,000 salary – one in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, one in a standard private scheme with 8% total contributions – will retire in profoundly different circumstances. The private sector worker accumulates a pot worth perhaps £35,000-£40,000 over 10 years, subject to market performance and whatever annuity rates look like when he or she retires. The TPS member walks away with a guaranteed, inflation-proofed income for life worth the equivalent of around £150,000=£190,000 in capital terms, backed by HM Treasury.
The gap is not marginal. It’s enormous. And the cost of it isn’t borne by the teacher, or by the college. It’s borne by every working person paying tax in this country – including the majority who will never come close to anything like it.
We’re looking in the wrong direction
I’m not having a go at my friend. He made a completely rational decision – looked at the incentives in front of him and acted accordingly. That’s what sensible people do. Nor am I suggesting teachers don’t work hard or don’t deserve decent pensions. The issue isn’t individual, it’s structural.
The issue is that political and media scrutiny of public spending tends to fixate on welfare claimants, benefit fraud and SEND budgets. These are legitimate areas of debate. But the public sector pension system – where an FE lecturer can accumulate a pension promise worth the equivalent of around £150,000-£190,000 in capital terms over a decade, with the bulk of the cost quietly underwritten by taxpayers – barely features in the conversation.
My friend swapped a hard hat for a classroom partly because the pension deal on offer is, frankly, extraordinary. The question worth asking is why that deal exists at such a scale, who’s paying for it, and why we spend so much time arguing about the wrong line items while this one quietly compounds in the background.
Shane McEvoy runs Flycast Media, a specialist financial digital marketing agency in the City.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I appreciate the depth of inquiry in this topic. Having more than one friend who benefited from both the Steel works shut down and Docks closures I understand even more now how this countries unions have helped to impoverish the working class in general via their blackmailing of government run institutions. These embedded crimes against ones own neighbours in the guise of fair play by Union pressure have life long repercussion. One friend often complains, in his 30th year since redundancy of how much tax he pays now on his enormous pension which was a part of his settlement. Who first allows these things to happen. Mind you I also have some policemen friends who retired many years ago on full pension still driving new cars etc. Oh yes and of course there is the postman, doctor, nurse all of whom of course were worthy of their hire but where does it all come from. Are we really the privileged generation or what. Also its best not to start about the services and especially those many still alive who receive large pensions from their civil service duties. How do we manage….
The question is why has this happened?
It is difficult not to conclude that there is intention behind these public sector schemes. I worked in financial services and was more than aware of the huge sums that are required to pay public sector pensions. Bluntly they are not feasible. The only conclusion is that governments have actively conspired to ensure that at some point the public services pensions system will go bust; the NHS alone employs over 1.5 million people and all on defined benefit pension schemes. Completely unaffordable. And, the public sector is growing not shrinking so the unfunded liabilities are also growing.
At some point soon this whole system has to crash and the rest of the financial system alongside.
The German pension system works entirely in this way, with the people who are currently employed paying for the pensions of those of have already retired and so on. It comes with all the same recurring disaster warnings which have been a constant background music during all of my life in Germany.
Maybe, there is no such problem and people working in the private sector in the UK are just being ripped off as hard as is currently legal?
I’m always highly suspicious when someone tries to appeal to my envy because this was traditionally not considered a human virtue, rather the opposite.
Unaffordble ???——But all that happens is the big International Private Banks create new money out of nothing and then lend it to governments who then are in the banks pockets forever. —–Two very famous people fought against this —-JFK and Lincoln. —-Go figure.
Charles Ponzi had a word for it.
A union looks after the interests of two groups of people, its members and its officials.
But not in that order ………………….
And we are all thankful, or should be that we have someone watching our back. Yet still the eagerness of a unions grasping for its members is based on the damage said union can do to the employer involved. In this case it is the people themselves holding the people hostage if they do not get what they, or the union demands. Why has this emotional self blackmail not been discouraged by now. Train drivers on over a thousand pounds a week I thought would have smashed the ceiling but no, it has just increased the greed of others.
“These embedded crimes against ones own neighbours in the guise of fair play by Union pressure have life long repercussion”
Not to mention the appalling “Closed Shop” which they worked till Thatcher made it illegal. This was simply an attack on other workers
Thanks for this interesting info.
You couldn’t pay me enough to be a teacher, though.
I think it’s time that public sector pensions came into line with private sector so that we can do a like for like comparison of the salaries – people would be outraged. One reason why it won’t happen.
I’d argue that your proposal is the wrong way around. Not so long ago many companies pension funds were ‘over funded’, some still are. But, the big change occurred when Gordon Brown decided that risk should be reduced in DB schemes. Consequently, he forced trustees to switch their investments from equities to gilts. It was the same kind of thinking that led him to sell our gold reserves at the bottom of the market.
It used to be that 80% of investments were in equities, mainly UK equities. They switched to 80% in gilts. Gilts tend to be safer but with low returns, equities, slightly riskier but higher returns. The pension funds then missed out on the equities boom but got caught by historically low returns in gilts post 2008 crash.
The Liz Truss ‘crash’ was primarily caused by pension funds being inventive with gilts and borrowing to buy additional gilts, when gilts spiked calls on pension funds multiplied & there was a liquidity problem causing a sell off.
If Brown had left trustees alone far more private sector workers would still have had the benefit of a DB pension.
Perhaps, though I wonder how much appetite there would be for returning to that. I am sure employees would be keen, employers and providers maybe less.
Gordon Brown was also responsible for removing the gains tax allowance on Pension Fund investments which had a massive overnight devaluation impact on Pension Fund values.
Gordon Brown destroyed the private pensions industry single-handedly. He was probably the most financially illiterate Chancellor we have ever been burdened with until Thieves came along.
Of course it is not unreasonable, with the benefit of hindsight, to conclude that Gordon was following somebody else’s script.
He was and is a communist. He was intending to destroy private pensions and private everything. They are incompetents and are destroying all we have. It will end in tears and civil war.
Depends what you’re teaching, I suppose? If you’re lucky enough to land a job teaching people who have chosen to be there to learn, I’d guess you’re more than half way there?
I’d also guess jobs like where students are fully engaged in the subject are probably as rare as hen’s teeth…
Depends what and where, yes. I could see myself tutoring someone privately. Working in an educational institution? I doubt it. Maybe there are some non-woke ones that are not full of lefties, but I don’t know of any in the UK.
Maybe the State has made provision for that – very generous and unlimited sickness leave and failing that a favourable early retirement package
Pensions apatheid has been going on for decades. My father was self employed all his life and for most of that time it was not possible for him to have a pension scheme. He never really retired bt he could not work for the last two years of his life after 80. Frankly he couldn’t have afforded any material contributions. Certain of his school mates went to work in the local council where they enjoyed a calm life with no responsibilities. They retired before age 65 (I am not sure I ever knew the exact age) and had very comfortable life styles. My son has two employments and one business. I looked at the terms of his UK University pension and life insurance once. It is very complex as one woulkd expect from the state. As far as I could make out his pension will be based on his last few years earnings in a university in the UK. That strongly motivates him to seek out such a job some time after age 55. I believe nurses pensions are similar – I knew of someone who was so desperate to spend the last few years inside the NHS she moved… Read more »
If I’m lucky, I may be able to work for another 17 years, that is, until I’m 70 and I’ll see with what savings this will leave as any pension I ever get – if any – will be entirely nominal. And it’s not yet certain that I will be this lucky despite there have been some decidedly positive movements in this direction lately, just some more bureaucratical hurdles to clear before I may be allowed to work again.
Some people are much better off in this respect and many of them work in the public sector. I hope they’re happy about this because there’s already enough misery on this planet and them also being miserable won’t help me in the slightest.
Good luck. I don’t see why you can’t work well past 70 though maybe you won’t want to.
One could argue that the tax money saved from making public sector pensions less generous would partly go into your pocket and partly into stimulating the wider economy which helps everyone. So it’s not necessarily a case of simply widening misery.
Well, as some guy from a recruiting company once diplomatically put it:
Sometimes, you don’t want to hire people with too much experience.
I hope to escape from this quagmire again and maybe, keep escaping from it until I’m 70 but hardly beyond. Regarding German standards, eg, what my sister (works in the public sector in Germany tells me) employers can get state subventions if they’re willing to hire someone over 50 at all. And over 50 I am. Which means silently considered too old for a lot of jobs I could perfectly well do. But by far not old enough to be even remotely allowed to stop working and hence, everything is my fault.
NB: Legislation obviously doesn’t help here unless you’re a professional compensation seeker.
Experience is over-rated in may view – work ethic and “cop-on” are more important. But I would not hold experience against someone. However someone with experience may quite naturally expect a higher salary so it may be a better bet to hire someone less experienced. That’s what we’ve tended to do recently. We do give the youngsters very large pay rises when they turn out well, which they generally have done. We work in a niche so the learning curve is large, few people have the relevant experience, so we prefer to train people slightly younger. Not much consolation for you. I did employ someone who was at the end of his career – think he did about 10 years with us before he retired, said he really enjoyed it. He was very clever and hard working. I am sure you are very talented – I hope you find somewhere that appreciates this. I have been very lucky, I know a lot of people have not been.
I could say something about experience here, but I won’t. In plain English, this statement simply means
Sometimes, you don’t want to hire old people!
Old people is probably roughly defined as Anyone over 40 and this is truly a case of I’ll shoot you if you dare cross this line! Now, cross the line or I’ll shoot you!
Regarding your other point: One could argue about a lot of things But the people getting these public sector pensions are just ordinary people who work and pay taxes whom the systems treats a little better and we – as ordinary people – shouldn’t be fighting each to keep dragging each other down. Chance are that, should less money be spent on public sector pensions, the excess money would go into yet more subsidies for green entrepreneurs already worth billions.
Some people do profit in seriously unfair ways. But policemen etc are certainly not among them.
“the excess money would go into yet more subsidies for green entrepreneurs already worth billions.”
Not if the government also stopped doing that. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to want to make sure that tax money is being spent wisely, and that includes looking at how much their workers get paid. I don’t want to drag anyone down and I have no dog in this fight as I am financially OK so it doesn’t make much difference to me.
Not if the government also stopped doing that.
The keyword here is if. If the government hasn’t already stopped doing so before targetting ordinary public sector workers, the fat cats will continue to profit and will get at least some of the money taken away from the others.
Well yes I am not optimistic.
£2.9 trillion debt. 55% of Government borrowing goes to service the debt and add to it.
It is the result of being a Socialist State which the population have been voting for since 1945. It won’t change unless and until the welfare State and NHS Leviathan is abolished, and the public services and charity are returned to the private and voluntary sector whence they came.
I consider a financial collapse in this country inevitable. We are many times bust and clearly intent on making the situation worse. It’s a certainty not a possibility.
Collective pensions plans are Ponzi schemes.
Like every socialist project it relies on looting others.
They have to give the Parasite Class more than scraps to keep them doing their dirty-work.
Brilliant summary of the whole situation, everywhere in the world!
The civil service, NHS and Teacher schemes don’t have a pot and cost nearly 30 percent in employer contributions. Contrast with Local Government scheme which has a pot invested on the stock market, this scheme costs around 15.5 percent in employer contributions for local government employees, 21.3 percent for school employees who are not teachers. The government should investigate why the other schemes are so much more expensive.
Its hardly suprising society is as it is when you read articles like this, pure greed, its an “I’m alright Jack” attitude, none of it will end well.
“The employer contribution rate for TPS is currently 28.68% of pensionable pay”
REMEMBER = by “employer contribution” what they really mean is “TAXPAYER contribution”
Have a look at medical pensions. Perhaps if resident doctors got the vast pay rise they are asking for then the quid pro quo could be abolition of the defined benefit scheme.
PS. Public Sector pension debt now running at c SIX TRILLION POUNDS.
And when public sectors say “I pay my taxes”, respond “No you don’t. I DO”