Hello John,
I did not remotely give the impression that it is only AFPS which grants abatement - in fact, I suggested that I wasn't aware it occurred "in industry", thereby implying there was a difference between public and private. Of course it isn't confined to AFPS. But that's what we were talking about.
I answered not with specific circumstances in mind, I did not offer anything other than to offer a thought how abatement might play out in the future. I referred to John Cridland who will steer state income thinking. Coincidentally, he spoke yesterday at an Eversheds event and remarked that pension spending was set to increase from 6.1% in the mid 2020s to 7.6% in just two decades, and that savings must be made. He further noted that we have consistently got our expectations of life expectancy wrong and that we need to address the generosity of our various schemes. He asked if there had to be trade offs, more pertinently, he asked whether a single state function has utility today when job structures and market now have so much variety and flexibility. In those circumstances, I stand by my thinking.
You seem to agree with me in respect of my point about AFPS05 and a pension. Although I referred to two or three of its aims, you seem to try to debunk me by referring only to its 'primary' aim - which I never mentioned. We all know there is a 'pension trap', but I referred to two or three of the reasons why we had a military income stream, and one of the reasons is, to be able to buy a home on demob. Maybe you speak with more retiring clients than I do, but I certainly used my AFPS75 income to pay for my home (maybe I'm in a minority of one). I also specifically referred to it as an EDP income stream, and until NRA is reached, that's what it is (and that's what HMRC classifies it as).
Have I ever classified the work of FPS as amateurish? I may have done, the various committees that FPS sits on, but that is a tangible difference. I may too, have referred to some of the participants as amateurs, but that is what they are. And it's not being demeaning, it's a fact. And I wasn't alone either, in thinking that CAC was sub standard and unsuitable for its task. So did Mary Burt in one of the releases afforded to us under legislation when it looked at the lack of scrutiny given by the committee (upon which FPS sits) to c.2010 dramatic pension changes that no one was told about. Why did FPS allow it to proceed/slip through?
Your final point touches upon the problem. One has to pay to join a society to get basic information. This is wrong. There should be a fully functioning Federation doing the job. It is no secret that I think the society has wavered in its priorities these past eighteen months or so, and that, prior, it very badly let down some retirees. I'm going to explore many things next week, relating to that particular issue, and I have secured the services of the actuarial team at one of the UK's largest life companies which is keen to help. It is no secret either, that I think the new system offering oversight of pension scheme changes is grossly inadequate and verges on the criminally irresponsible.
Finally, it's been over twenty seven years since anyone referred to me as 'Rush'. Forgive what might come across as amused pique, but given that I also contribute towards your handsome salary, might I suggest that a little courtesy may be in order.
Edit, not thirty two years.. twenty seven.
Last edited by Al R; 2nd Dec 2016 at 17:24.