Telegraph pensions

Apologies please disregard- misread public sector pensions for state pension so my comment is not relevant to the question The UK State pension is an important safety net for those who have insufficient company or personal retirement provisions and a vital part of the financial plan even for those that do. It is a predictable inflation-protected income stream until death. Long term, however, the triple lock will not be sustainable for UK public finances, especially as the population ages. If it is to be kept, the state pension should be viewed as a benefit not a reward just as national insurance contributions should be viewed as a tax and not part of a personal pension pot. The state pension should therefore be means tested for those with assets and income above a certain level.

The Pensions Minister has dared to mention the massive white elephant in the room - public sector pensions. It's become taboo to discuss the huge disparity in public vs private sector funding, and I'm sure he will be criticized for stating what many in government must have known for years - this is not sustainable. It's not just the cost of providing these "gold-plated" schemes, but the generous tax rules that apply to them. The calculation used for the pension Lifetime Allowance, for example, is wildly out of date and results in lower tax bills for those with large final salary pensions.

Like state pensions, this is a political hot potato. You could cap the pensions for higher earners in the NHS, for example, as the lifetime allowance still does not hugely affect them. The maximum final salary pension could be capped at £50k. It's hard to punish lower earners as the pension benefits are an attractive benefit for later life in the NHS. As for MPs, you can question whether it's acceptable and right for them to have such generous schemes and what value they have added to our society over the past 5-6 years. If we are talking about levelling up society, perhaps we should start with those in power? Adrian Kidd 07951060219

"Guy Opperman is spot on. Public sector pensions are not sustainable in the long run. Guaranteeing an income for someone for a 30 year retirement, when there is such uncertainty in the world, is madness. It made sense when people retired at 60/65 and only lived for about five years. But it does not fit with todays world. Change needs to happen and it has to start now."

Public sector pensions may not sustainable, but only because of government policy. It's a political choice whether or not these schemes continue. They provide a bedrock of financial stability for our society as whole and a rapid shift towards defined contribution schemes would have huge ramifications. In fairness though, some kind of reform will likely be needed as longevity continues to improve. Defined benefit pensions in the pubic sector often provide generous benefits and can raise questions of fairness, especially as the burden ultimately falls on taxpayers. Some of the more generous schemes are those enjoyed by politicians, so perhaps they could lead by example and re-align their own pension benefits to match those of the people they serve?