Trump prevents cash-strapped councils from cutting gold-plated pensions
Cash-strapped councils are facing new seven-figure shortfalls after their hopes of cutting pension costs were dashed by Donald Trump.
Local authorities currently spend almost a quarter of council tax revenue on funding the generous schemes, but many were banking on slashing contributions from 2026.
Some councils could have saved around £3m a year with a 2pc cut, but John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, said a combination of poor investment decisions and market losses from Donald Trump's tariff war may have ended their chances.
It comes as households across the country face an average 5pc council tax hike, with thousands now facing bills in excess of £5,000.
Council workers are part of the Local Government Pension Scheme, which provides retirees with an inflation-linked income for life. Local authorities pay in a fixed percentage of employees' salaries, set independently by their scheme's three-yearly valuation.
Currently, they contribute an average of 21.1pc, costing almost £7bn a year.
There are 19 councils that paid in more than £50m last year alone, and three that contributed over £100m.
Overall, the Local Government Pension Scheme had £22.1bn surplus at its 2022 valuation, which rose to £85bn this year, according to pension consultants Isio – fuelling hope that contributions could be reduced during valuations this year.
The move could have saved some councils millions of pounds a year, but Mr Ralfe said Donald Trump's global tariffs and the ensuing market chaos may now have ended their chances.
He said: 'The Local Government Pension Scheme has around £400bn in assets, three quarters of which are in equities. These are subject to market volatility, but strong recent performance meant many funds were heading for a very promising surplus this year.
'However, that was the time to move from equities to something less volatile and lock those surpluses in. The fall in equity markets of the last few days, especially in the US where the majority of the scheme's equities are held, will have hit them hard.
'As a result, most funds will now be back in deficit and the chance has gone.
'This isn't just 'bean counting'. Some local councils were relying on a long term surplus to reduce their annual pension contributions, which is now much less likely to happen.'
Clare Moffat, of Royal London, said: 'At the last valuation, many schemes were in surplus and where that was still the case, one of the options would have been to reduce employer contributions.
'However, in the aftermath of Donald Trump's tariff war and its effect on the stock market, the chances of that could now be slimmer depending on the type of investments they have.
'A reduction in pension contributions would have been helpful for struggling councils, but this is only one of the options available when there is a surplus and it can never be relied upon.'
A spokesman from the Local Government Pension Scheme said: 'In recent years investment returns have been very directly impacted by a number of global political and economic factors.
'Despite that, over the longer term investors have consistently managed to outperform inflation and meet their investment goals. They do so by taking a long-term view and maintaining an appropriately diversified portfolio of assets.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watch: Trump reacts to news that actors are boycotting his attendance at Kennedy Center
Donald Trump says he is unbothered by actors boycotting his attendance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center Wednesday night (11 June). Several 'Les Mis' cast members are expected to sit out the performance fundraiser after news broke that the president would be in the audience. As Trump walked the red carpet with Melania ahead of the show, a reporter asked him how he felt about the actors' protest. 'I couldn't care less, honestly, I couldn't,' Trump said. 'All I do is run the country well.' The president proceeded to list off some of his perceived accomplishments from his second term.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
In defence of the Trump playbook
The standard explanation for why charges for plastic bags reduced waste is economic. People were reluctant to pay 10p for a bag and so brought their own instead. This is partly true. But it would still be highly effective if the charge for a bag were merely 1p. That's because charging any amount, however trifling, was sufficient to change the implicit assumptions about normal retail behaviour. Previously, if you went into Boots and bought, say, a toothbrush and a tube of Anusol, the default was for the cashier to put them in a new bag – it would have seemed rude not to do so. Suddenly, however, the imposition of a charge meant that shopkeepers had to ask whether you wanted a bag or not. Often the answer was 'no'; you had one already, or, if you were a chap, your clothing was miraculously equipped with things called 'pockets'. There are many ways in which you can achieve large changes in behaviour without imposing large economic penalties. For instance, I contend that you could significantly reduce intergenerational inequality simply by the imposition of a property tax of 0.1 per cent annually on all homes. The relatively small amount raised could be hypothecated to fund child benefit, or to reduce the income tax burden on the young. For the purposes of comparison, the typical property tax levied by those well-known leftists in the State of Texas is slightly over 1.8 per cent. Bear me out. I am borrowing here from the Donald Trump playbook. This is an under-rated approach to legislation where you impose taxes not for their direct effect, but for their symbolic value. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold about the future. You don't necessarily have to do anything massive – you simply raise the possibility you might. Most human behaviour runs on implicit deterrents of this kind. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold Before The Donald, it had become an axiomatic assumption in all businesses that no democratic government of any political stripe would ever deviate from the smug Davos neo-liberal globalist consensus in any shape or form. This artificial certainty meant that for decades you could offshore employment with abandon and treat your native staff fairly shabbily, without fear of any adverse consequences. Today it's different: even if you later reduce many tariffs to near zero and stop randomly abusing Canada, the signal has been sent. I hate to say this, but this approach could work well to solve many other problems. For instance, Britons have been lulled into planning for their future on the assumption that three unwritten rules underpin the tax system. 1) If you actually get up in the morning and do some useful work for which you get paid, you'll be taxed to buggery; 2) If you acquire wealth and then ride the wave of asset-price inflation (i.e. you have more money than you need 'cos you're old), you will be treated very generously; 3) If the asset in question is your own home, you won't be taxed at all, and nor will your good-for-nothing kids when they inherit it all. A large part of the reason why young people cannot afford to buy homes is nothing to do with the use value of a home – it is driven by the as-yet-unshaken belief that residential property has been sanctified as an asset class. It is this belief which possibly accounts for 25 per cent of the price of a home and a similarly large part of oldsters' pathological reluctance to downsize. Residential property is seen as Britain's only tax haven. To unseat this assumption, you don't need to rewrite the whole tax code, or go full Henry George – much as I would personally support this. You just have to make the unthinkable suddenly thinkable.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fears Trump could sink US-UK nuclear subs deal after President ordered review into pact intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression
Royal Navy chiefs voiced concerns last night after Donald Trump ordered a review of the nuclear submarine pact between the UK, the US and Australia. Aukus, as the joint project is known, is intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression and involves multi-billion-pound commitments to build new nuclear-powered submarines. The Ministry of Defence announced its intention to build up to 12 submarines for Aukus and other operations as part of last week's Strategic Defence Review. But these plans have been thrown into doubt after the US defence department announced a review to ensure Aukus meets the President's 'America First' agenda. Relations between the US and Australia have soured over tariffs. America has also demanded Australia increase defence spending and wants to sell older submarines to Australia on favourable terms. Another cause for concern is the review is being led by Aukus sceptic Elbridge Colby, who is close to President Trump. Last night former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West said: 'Aukus is extremely important for the strategic situation in the Pacific and very important for Britain as a way of us moving into our next generation of submarines. 'The US had had concerns about selling its submarines to Australia, so it is not entirely unexpected that President Trump would want to look at this. Hopefully this can be resolved and we all move on together as part of the alliance.' The deal is regarded as a pillar of security co-operation. But concerns have been raised in the US over the rate of submarine production and Australia's reluctance to commit to a 'no holds barred' response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The US is committed to selling up to five boats to Australia, vessels which many in the US believe should be retained by the US Navy.
