Armed Forces pension

[Kreuger flap]

So the government has said that anybody retiring in the next ten years won't be affected by any changes to the public sector pensions. Will this also be the case for the Armed Forces or will we still have the bat inserted up the one way valve?

[The B Word]

KF

Apparently it's not a one-way valve these days - all perfectly legal...:ok:

The B Word

:yuk:

[Melchett01]

Will this also be the case for the Armed Forces or will we still have the bat inserted up the one way valve?

If I were a betting man, I'd say no ... someone has to pay for the better terms for the other sectors. If you believe the Telegraph, sometimes a big ask these days, but the numbers they are pushing for teachers' and nurses' pensions show quite significant rises - apparently teachers will now be able to retire on 25K and nurses on almost 23K, rises in both instances from the old schemes, all based on higher employer contributions, a higher accrual rate and later retirement giving longer to build a pot.

Somehow I can't see the AFPRB getting an equivalent deal for the Forces.

[Peter Carter]

Anyone else have around a 5% shortfall on their pension payment last month (not tax related)?

[F.O.D]

If the BBC politics page for 3 November is correct, it looks like we could all be in for a bigger robbery from our pensions than the RPI/CPI swindle. Essentially it looks as if the esteemed Government is considering squirming out from paying even CPI increases if it can.



"Freezing payments
The Financial Times is reporting that Chancellor George Osborne has asked officials for alternative models, including a rise in line with average earnings growth of about 2.5% or freezing some payments.

It is understood the government will have "resolved" the options by early December when the uprating of benefits is presented to Parliament.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has calculated that the 5.2% September inflation figure will add £1.8bn to welfare spending next year.

It said freezing all benefits and pensions would save about £10bn and linking benefits increases to wage rises would save £5bn.

A further option of switching from the September inflation figure to an average inflation figure calculated over six months could save about £1.4bn, the IFS added.

'Difficult decisions'
During a visit to RAF crews in Lincoln, Mr Clegg said: "I think we all know that we are having to do something extremely difficult.

"But we have been very, very clear, we're not going to balance the books on the backs of the poor. That will remain our guiding principle as we continue to take these difficult decisions in the weeks, months and years to come."

Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "Pensioners up and down the country struggling with rising heating bills and worried about the winter ahead will now be worried sick about rumours that the Tory-led Government is about to bin its commitment to triple lock the increase in pensions.

He called for Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith to "come clean" about whether the triple lock was government policy now and next year, or another broken promise.

The coalition's so-called "triple lock" policy meant that from April 2011 the basic state pension would rise each year in line with average earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever was the most.

In 2011, the relevant measure of price inflation was the retail prices index but from next year it will be the consumer prices index."




Has anyone heard what progress has been made in the High Court in the RPI/CPI court case? - it has all gone deathly quiet for over a week!

[Charlie Time]

Isn't the AFPS a public sector pension scheme and therefore the 10 year retirement rule applies?

[JEMster]

Yes, the 10-yr rule should apply but the catch is going to be that the AFPS05 retirement age is formally 55 (your actual or planned preserved pension receipt date probably won't be counted) so you will have to be 45 by Apr 12 in order to be elligble for special treatment. Otherwise IMHO you'll be shafted just as bad as the rest.

[Al R]

People aren't staying in as long - the career profile is changing radically, so is that 45/10 figure as relevent to someone in their 20s or 30s as it may have been 25 years ago I wonder? Another complication is AFPS is paid for by general taxation and has to fund the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, which is far more generous than it has been in the past. That particular demand on AFPS coffers is going to soar over the next 30 years and its a hidden cost of the scheme that tends to get forgotten.

You could argue that the need to be pragmatic is stronger than it is with other sectors of the public pension world. The MoD pays 37% or so of officers' salaries and 21% of salaries for ORs into the scheme, rising to (on average) 34% over the next three years. So, does it want people staying in as long as before? Probably not..? Thankfully (for the MoD), most people seem happy to serve fewer and fewer years (hence my first point).

[Charlie Time]

And for those that stayed on AFPS75 is there any difference?

[Voxpop]

The plan is that in 2015 or 2016 (at the latest) the Armed Forces Pension Schemes will close and all serving personnel will be transferred to a career-average scheme. The Forces Pension Society has not yet seen the framework document for the proposed scheme. When we have seen it, we will be putting it on our website (The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk)) and will put something on ARRSE, Rum Ration, E-Goat and this site.

The Forces Pension Society will be working hard to ensure that the Armed Forces get the best possible scheme.

[Chainkicker]

PC,
Anyone else have around a 5% shortfall on their pension payment last month (not tax related)?
Not me. Exactly the same for the last 3 months :ok:

[jindabyne]

Nor me - no change.

[sidewayspeak]

The plan is that in 2015 or 2016 (at the latest) the Armed Forces Pension Schemes will close and all serving personnel will be transferred to a career-average scheme.

I am still on AFPS 75 and hit 50 in May 2016 - got to be my bingo for banging out.

[Bert Angel]

Big rumour, coming from ACOS Manning, is that under the new scheme you'll be out at 55 with your gratuity but not get your pension until 60.

Where's that yellow & black.....

[Party Animal]

Am I right in thinking that after the age of 50 you can apply to leave with 6 months notice? Almost like a variable option point and not the same as having to PVR? Just seem to remember this being mentioned some time back. If so, and there really is going to be a 5 year wait for your pension, I doubt there would be any old timers left in by the date it kicked off.

Also understand that already accrued pension values would apply up to the date of changeover, so would that also include commencement date?:ugh:

[Just This Once...]

It is the later of age 50 or 30 years service.

[Kreuger flap]

Big rumour, coming from ACOS Manning, is that under the new scheme you'll be out at 55 with your gratuity but not get your pension until 60.

So they are going to make you retire at age 55, sure there is something about making you retire at a particular age, and make you wait until you are 60 for your pension? Not good news.

[Melchett01]

Big rumour, coming from ACOS Manning, is that under the new scheme you'll be out at 55 with your gratuity but not get your pension until 60.


Unless of course you qualify for your pension and have an option point before the new pension scheme comes in. Briefing we had at Shriv was that they can't take anything off you already earned - and that includes an immediate pension. It would be anything earned after the transfer to the new scheme which would be payable at 60 rather than the whole pension.

So if you have an option point 2014/15, I think an awful lot of people will be looking to bank what they have before they find themselves scrabbling round for a job at 55 whilst waiting for the pension to kick in. The cynic in me says any such scheme to stop you taking your pension at 55 whilst leaving you trying to find a job is a deliberate ploy to get people to either PVR or leave at an option point so they don't have to pay redundancy.

[Kreuger flap]

So if you were 53 at the change over in 2015 would you get what you had earned up to that point at age 55 with the rest coming to you at age 60?

[Admin_Guru]

K_F

That has always been the stance with regard to any terms and conditions. What is already banked will be delivered on time; it is the serviceman of the future that will have a different career to today, those mid-career will have a slightly modified one and those in their latter years will not give a toss.

Of course the gloves are off when viewed from the perspective of a bankrupt government, but the so is immunity from anarchy. ....and I fear that within the civpop the touchpaper awaits.

[Melchett01]

Kreuger,

That's the way I understand it - you'd get what you earned for your service up to 53 when you left service, and assuming that was at 55, the remaining 2 years pension would be based on the new career average scheme and paid at 60 - effectively a second pension.

But I would say that I'm not an adviser of any kind, so you might want to get that confirmed by someone actually qualified to talk pensions. (Although I am hoping I'm right, otherwise it's going to be a bumpy ride!)

[The Old Fat One]

My advice remains the same as it always has.

When it comes to pensions...

1. Trust no ****er.
2. Read everything.
3. If in doubt (any doubt) bank what you have, select ****ing off devices to fine pitch, and exit stage left into the sunset, middle digit at maximum extension.
4. Trust no ****er.

PS

I love a mixed metaphor.

[The Old Fat One]

Thankfully melchett I go next year with a full PA Pension and will be a happy man. Wing Commanders pension and I am only a Flt Lthttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif. Good job I didn't work very hard at getting promoted.



good effort VG 10/10 :ok:


Oh and at the same time make sure every other public sector pension scheme makes their people richer, but who are we eh?


Nope...not even close!

Comparitively speaking, the armed forces pension scheme is a Rolls Royce of a scheme. The vast majority of people in UK PLC don't even have a pair of roller skates when it comes to retirement. Most UK public sector schemes are pretty damn good and the armed forces one is as good as any and better than most.

Show a little perspective please....:=

[Al R]

Indeed - couldn't agree more with this..

So if you have an option point 2014/15, I think an awful lot of people will be looking to bank what they have before they find themselves scrabbling round for a job at 55 whilst waiting for the pension to kick in. The cynic in me says any such scheme to stop you taking your pension at 55 whilst leaving you trying to find a job is a deliberate ploy to get people to either PVR or leave at an option point so they don't have to pay redundancy.

Kreuger, your post last night is about right and there will be ringfenced rights, but hey - who knows what tomorrow brings with this bunch? Will there ever be an end to this dreadful mismanagement? I would like Rutland to declare UDI and be done with it, I'm just so fed up with paying taxes to people I wouldn't trust to run a coffee swindle. I even had a client ask me last week about transferring an accrued AFPS 'pot' to a private pension (NOT a good idea in that instance I should add) in order to protect it from future uncertainty - that question would have been unheard of a couple of years ago.

There is much that those guys on your sqn could be doing to protect themselves. However, the g'ment is saying that it is that short of money that the National Employmment Savings Trust (NEST) pension scheme could be deferred. If those mates of yours were 50 and working for some civvy organisation, they would be even more seriously stuffed - paying through the nose to offset the start up costs for an expensive scheme and then retiring before the costs are reduced :ugh:. But I hope they are thinking beyond their AFPS entitlement to offset and mitigate potential bad news.

Servicemen and women in their 40s/early50s have some really difficult (easy maybe?!) decisions to make right now.

[Party Animal]

Actually Al, I see it as an easy decision for the 30/50 year olds:

If you're 50'ish now then leave at 55 with 90% of the originally expected pension and have a minor top up at the age of 60. You will be pissed off and angry but it's managable and obviously, you will have already made the decision at your 44 point that you preferred to stick with the RAF till the end and not go chasing a decent second career while time was on your side.

If you're 30'ish now, then continue to enjoy what you can and maybe consider staying to your 38 point. But at that stage, you will be fully focussed on your second career in life with a view to rising up some civilian promotion chain to a reasonable level of responsibility and working till the age of 65/66. Dare I say it, regardless of rank, you would be almost foolish to stay in.

As for the 40'ish year olds, I think a significant number would go at the 44 point if that date is to the left of the new policy start date and the rest will be looking to get out as soon as the jobs market will allow. No doubt, there will be lots of head scratching over the (previously unexpected) need to make a big life decision but this is the group that will be most drastically hit.

As for the future of the RAF, only the losers will stay past 38/44 with even worse leadership from above. They will probably be the same people who leave at 55 and sign straight on the dole, having spent their entire gratuity on reducing the mortgage.

Just seems to me like an amazing hole that Hutton/Govt/MOD have not taken into consideration. The Armed Forces Normal Pension Age will move from 55 to 60 to reflect the unique characteristics of their service but the retirement age will remain at 55. Surely, the 2 are inextricably linked?

[Albert Another]

This is massively scary. Yes I think we will have to contribute more in the future for our pension fund. But no lump sum or immediate pension if you PVR before 55, or no pension between 55 & 60 when you will find it hard to get a second career! This equates to an enormous loss of future earnings you plan all your service life to get to say: help buy a house, reduce the mortgage when you leave the service or put your kids through University.

People mention that everyone in the country is being affected by pension changes so why should we complain about our ‘gold plated one’ being changed. True but reason this: How many other jobs do you willingly let yourself be put in war zones, moved around every few years or be deployed at short notice for long periods. All of this is also sharply endured by friends and family?

I hope we just get increased contribution with those currently in the service able to keep their immediate pension and lump sum both on PVR or at 55. If not I feel there may be a rash of experienced, skilled, previously loyal 38-53 year olds opting for PVR before any changes occur.

:(

[radar101]

TOFO stated:

Nope...not even close!

Comparitively speaking, the armed forces pension scheme is a Rolls Royce of a scheme. The vast majority of people in UK PLC don't even have a pair of roller skates when it comes to retirement. Most UK public sector schemes are pretty damn good and the armed forces one is as good as any and better than most.


True, I have just retired, full stop. My 16 years of RAF service gives me twice the pension that my 16 years of Civil Service pension does - and this for the same final equivalent rank!!

{yes, I know the civilian equivalent rank thing is Bo**ocks but it is the only comparison I have}

[Al R]

Are you doing salary sacrifice?

The employer is putting in, erm.. nothing? Out of interest, is this something it is now pushing out to the whole workforce after having done nothing previously?

[Party Animal]

So the government has said that anybody retiring in the next ten years won't be affected by any changes to the public sector pensions


Returning to the opening lines of this thread. That statement is completely at odds with the rumour that all SP will have to transfer over to a new system around 2015/2016 resulting in a lower figure for final pension. Even worse, with the reduced amount you will receive at 55 and a gaping 5 year hole!

Maybe,whoever in the MOD is tasked with looking at the new scheme needs to sit on their hands for a while. Or someone needs to ask the Pensions Minister for an example showing how a 45 year old SP will not be financially affected over the next 10 years...

[Jacks Down]

I'm no fan of getting a smaller pension but we need to face a few facts. The figures quoted earlier for the percentage of our salaries the MoD pays for our pensions are actually too low. No civilian employer pays anything like this and we pay nothing (well, maybe the AFPRB abate our pay a little - but it is only a little). And that money is not at the mercy of the financial markets as we have a defined benefit scheme which can only be changed by legislation. Given that the Armed Forces have a few friends and a pretty good rep I know which one I would rather take my chances with.

Now it happens that our employer can no longer afford to pay quite such staggeringly generous amounts, and Lord Hutton (a Labour peer by the way) has told them that they shouldn't be trying to any more. So we are going to get less in future, which isn't great, but we need to wake up and smell a bit of coffee here. I've noticed the world economy teetering on the brink of disaster, which is a teeny bit relevant. We have been told that those currently serving will keep whatever benefits they have earned from the current scheme, and maybe this new '10 year' promise will make things less painful still. And you can be damn sure if you jump ship over this, the new deck you land on will be lower than the one you left.

Happy retiring!

[stablelad]

Just read the latest edition of Pennant the magazine of the Forces Pension Society. On page 26 there is an article on "Dynamising" basically it explains how due to the lack of any current salary increases for serving members, those members retiring 2012 / 2013 could find themselves in a "Pension trough" and how the FPS has managed to negotiate the same increases in their pensions that individuals who retired before the pay freeze are entitled to. So you may not be getting a pay rise whilst still serving but you're pension is rising. Unfortunately I can't get a copy of the article, but if you are retiring in the next 18mths or so then this article will make pleasant reading! Well done to the FPS:D

[harrier123]

I am very worried by all of this. My 16 year point is 2017 so I was going to leave at aged 38 and become a teacher with the pension topping up the wage. If the pension changes in 2015/16 this would cost me many thousands of pounds. The only hope I have is I will still get an IP at my 16 year point but only 14/16. I think it will be very harsh for them to say I wont get anything for another 30 years. If this is the case and it is released next year I will go asap.

[stablelad]

Lunch

What the article is saying is that an individual who left on "05" scheme full pension in 2010, would be entitled to an annual CPI rated pension increase in both 2011 & 2012. So his pension will be more than another individual retiring at the end of March 2013, creating a "Pension Trough" for the later retiree. The FPS has convinced the MOD to introduce "dynamising" into the scheme thus protecting personal who retire in the period 2011 - 31 Mar 2013

So a Sqn Ldr who retires on 31 Mar 2013 would retire on a salary of £56,500 the same salary as a Sqn Ldr who retired in late 2010 but who is benefitting from the increases of CPI inflation in 2011 & 2012, so his actual pension will be more than the Sqn Ldr who has retired 2 years later.

He quotes an inflation increase of 3.1% in 2011 & a estimated increase of 3.9% in 2012, on a compound basis this would be a 7.1% overall increase, and a gives the later retiree a "new salary rate of £60,523. This means our Sqn Ldr will receive terminal benefits 7.1% greater than otherwise have been the case."

Sorry if this hasn't made it any clearer but if you can IM me I will send you a photo of the article which hopefully you can expand and read. The other option is to join the FPS at £16 a year and read the article online.

[Just This Once...]

So why is this limited to the '05 scheme?

[Sloppy Link]

Once,
I am only guessing, is it because 05 is a final salary calculation whereas 75 is a representative salary?

Al R?

[LFFC]

JTO,

It's all to do with the way that your Final Salary is calculated under AFPS05. When 05 was being formulated, the FPS lobbied that it should be "dynamic" over the last 2 years. As I understand it, this principle was adopted by the MOD/government and written into AFPS05; but AFPS75 remained unchanged.

As far as I can make out, when you retire as a member of AFPS05 your pension is worked out as follows:
1. Your best consecutive 365 days of salary over the last 3 years is established.

2. That figure is then rolled back 2 years to remove military pay rises received during that period.

3. Finally, the result is increased by the famous CPI figure that all pensioners received during the last 2 years.
So anyone on AFPS05 retiring over the next couple of years will be better off than they expected. :O

The downside is that, if the Armed Forces were to receive an above-inflation pay rise after the pay freeze gets lifted (you can always dream - but it happened in the late 70s), then AFPS05 members retiring soon afterwards wouldn't see it reflected in their pensions. :*

[Voxpop]

The 75 scheme works on pension codes and pension codes are linked to pay. Thus when inflation runs ahead of pay rises, like now, a pension trough occurs.

When MOD were designing AFPS 05 the Forces Pension Society put a lot of pressure on MOD to build in a mechanism which would afford some degree of protection against pension troughs.

In the 05 scheme you work out pension based on Final Pensionable Pay. That is worked out by going back three years, inflating pay more than a year ago by inflation, and looking at which are the best 365 days consecutive pay. In 'normal' times, the best 365 days pay will be the final year - but these are not normal times.

[stablelad]

Thanks for the extra info, but I still have one question that I would like the answer to. So if "dynamising" is going to increase the pensions of those retiring in 2011 - end of March 2013, will it also increase the lump sum by the same ammount, or is it just a pension increase?

I am getting wishful here rolleyes:

[Al R]

Sloppy,

Sorry - no idea! Dynamising pensions is pretty normal - pensions are calculated by adding superannuable income and multiplying it by a factor. That Dynamising Factor (the DF) is then applied to each year’s earnings to take them up to a current value. For example, a factor for 1980 might be 5 (+). So someone with earnings of £20,000 in 1980 would equate to £100,000 (+) in today’s terms.

Patricia Hewitt got dragged over the coals by GPs a while back in respect of her buggering about with their DF - I think I'm right in saying that the GP factor is currently CPI +1.5% per annum. But what FPS has been doing recently is something I'm not familiar with at all, sorry. Having said that, it knows the scheme inside out so I'm sure they're lobbying with guile and insight!

FPS - £16 pa - bargain. :ok:

[Voxpop]

I can confirm that, when the pension is dynamised, the lump sum is three times the higher amount.

The only times I can think of that the lump sum is not three times the pension are:

- if an AFPS 05 lump sum is inversely commuted (given up in favour of an increased pension);
- if an AFPS 05 pension has been allocated by the member for someone who is financially dependent upon him or her; and
- where a court makes an order following a divorce.

[Voxpop]

Just a quick correction FPS membership is currently £30 pa - not £16.

[Al R]

Thanks for the correction - still great value.

I also stand by to be corrected on this technical aspect about gratuities ('75), but I believe that in order to qualify for one, someone had to have completed at least one year in service and that in the opinion of the Defence Council, that service was completed 'to a satisfactory level'.

Amazing - I qualified on both counts.

[stablelad]

"I can confirm that, when the pension is dynamised, the lump sum is three times the higher amount."

Great news!

Thanks Voxpop made my day.

[sidewayspeak]

IBN on Armed Forces Pension Scheme Reform went up on our scrolling news today. One of the key points that caught my eye:

The Government has proposed additional protection for those within 10 years of their Normal Pension Age, meaning they will be unaffected by the changes. The precise implications for the Armed Forces of this additional protection has not yet been fully explored.

So it's not even agreed yet - we have to wait and sweat to see if they decide to shaft us. Anybody who is past their IP reading this .... be prepared to hit the 7-click PVR button and go with what you have before they fcuk us over.

My message to anybody from the Government, the MOD, the RAF or perhaps more importantly, the press. Get fcuked. Stick your moving terms and conditions - in which we have no say - up your backside. From now until exit, I am no longer on your side and am here to take everything I can get and give you fcuk all back.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Lima Juliet]

Sideways

That's exactly what I did...shouted "Bank" and was out in 3 months :ok:

http://static.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-content/phoneimages/2007/11/weakest_link.jpg

And I got more than the top figure as a tax free lump sum! Now earning another new pension from HM Paymaster :ok:

Q. The best way to protect your accrued pension before they mess with it?

A. "Bank!"

LJ

[VinRouge]

Is normal pension age here 60/55 or is it 38?

[F.O.D]

At last, a spot of better news for Service pensioners (at least for the time being). Despite George Osborne's enthusiasm for the idea, the Govt has decided it is really too difficult to combine Income Tax and National Insurance into a single tax any time soon. Some commentators had suggested that a new single income tax rate would include tax and NI together which would imply a basic rate of circa 32% which could be bad news for pensioners. In the paper released today on the HM Treasury website, the Govt confirms that they have no plans to charge NI on Pension income. Phew!!!

F.O.D

[cazatou]

F.O.D.

Does that mean we have to postpone the Coup?

[scientia in alto]

I think that the gov has been very clever with the 10yr rule. It effectively takes the wind out of the sails of all those with the biggest voice! Leaving all those younger people to get shafted by their seniors, who maintain their better deal [and won't want to rock the boat]. A masterful tactical move!

I was also hoping that the 10yr rule would include the 38 IPP, as I fully intend to leave at that point and that was what I did all my financial planning on. This is all a very dirty trick of changing our pay and conditions without cause for recourse. When treated like this our loyalty has to wain!

2017 IPP, or PVR pre changes... standby the pensions calculator!

[Al R]

'Divide and conquer'?! All people want (need??) is some clarity now, so that they can start making important decisions.

FOD,

Good news indeed.

[The Old Fat One]

My message to anybody from the Government, the MOD, the RAF or perhaps more importantly, the press. Get fcuked. Stick your moving terms and conditions - in which we have no say - up your backside. From now until exit, I am no longer on your side and am here to take everything I can get and give you fcuk all back.


This.... +1

[Lima Juliet]

Anyone on FTRS and reading this web-page [RFPS Guidance] (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PersonnelPublications/Pensions/Reserves/ReserveForcesPensionSchemeGuidanceBooklets.htm) and looking at "The 2010 amendments to the Reserve Forces Pension Scheme 2005 regulations", don't worry. It's actually for Full Time Reserve Service Pension Scheme 1997 (not RFPS05 as the link states). Nearly gave myself an early heart attack reading it last night and then realising it doesn't apply!

The interesting one for FTRS is that service to 65 is now open with a preserved pension (RFPS05) for those that leave <60 years old at age 65, or an immediate pension (RFPS05) at 60 years and onwards. I wonder if AFPS15 ( or whatever it will be called) will follow the same thinking?

Service to 65...starting to think of Dad's Army - can I be Cpl Jones? Or Captain Mainwaring? :E

LJ

[Leaky]

Guys,

Received this the other day from an ex colleague. I was completely unaware of this as I'm out of the UK but seems like this is yet another attempt to reduce the pension bill and it will affect you. Please use the embedded link and sign the petition:

In November 2010, Theresa May's aide, David Beckingham, wrote to me on Theresa's behalf, "the Government believes the CPI provides a more appropriate measure of pension recipients' inflation experiences and is also consistent with the measure of inflation used by the Bank of England." Two weeks ago I asked the Bank of England, on the telephone, which inflation index was going to be used in 2011 to increase Bank of England and Court pensions. The pensions are increased in July. They refused to answer on the phone so I submitted a Freedom of Information request. Yesterday I received a letter from the Deputy Secretary of the Bank of England which was the Bank's reply to my pension increase FOI question. The Deputy Secretary wrote: "The RPI will be used for calculating increases in 2011. "It may come as a surprise to learn that Bank of England and Court pensions will be increased in 2011 by the RPI, a measure which is not consistent with the inflation measure used by the Bank of England! You couldn't make it up. If you draw a Service Pension take note. The recent Forces Pension Society newsletter tells of an RPI/CPI e-petition which has been established, hoping to reverse the Government's decision to link pension increases to CPI instead of RPI. The Government will debate e-petitions that achieve 100,000 signatures, so please can you pass on the following link to ex-servicemen that you know in the hope that they'll sign it, as it affects all of us. The link is:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535/signature/new (https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535/signature/new) Public & Private Pension Increases - change from RPI to CPI.

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions. Many workers in the Public and Private Sector have contributed to their pensions on the understanding that on retirement these Pensions would be increased each April by the preceding September's Retail Price Index (RPI) rate. From April 2011 the Government has transferred these increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure which in the Treasury's own words "...is designed to take account of the fact that consumers tend to shop around, switching to cheaper alternatives when prices of similar goods change." This change, which has been introduced in most cases without any prior consultation, will mean a steady reduction in spending power for pensioners as they progress into their retirement. Given the promises that have previously been made, the RPI measure should be reintroduced without delay to ensure that the spending power of these Public and Private pensioners is maintained. NB The change from RPI to CPI as a measure of general inflation was, of course, introduced to the UK by that well-known financial genius, Gordon Brown MP. His reason? Purely and simply to reduce government expenditure. While there isn't (and won't ever be) a single, universal and accurate measure of inflation, the CPI has consistently run at around 0.5 to 1.5% per annum less than the RPI. They look to be tiny figures, but CPI won't half reduce the real value of your pension, in double-quick time. Don't let Osborne get away with it! Sign up now, and forward to all your serving and ex-Service mates.

Leaky

[Voxpop]

AFPS 75:
If you serve for 16 yrs from age 21 as an officer or 22yrs from age 18 as an OR you get your pension immediately. If you leave before these points, your pension is preserved. Preserved pensions are paid out at age 60 in respect of pensions built up prior to 6 April 2006 and 65 for pensions built up from that date onwards. You can ask for any pension due at 65 to be paid as early as 60 but it will be reduced by 5% for every year it is paid early and the lump sum will be reduced by 3% for each year it is paid early.

AFPS 05:
If you serve until 55 you pension is paid straight away. If you leave before that age it is preserved for you until you are 65. You can ask to have it paid as early as 55 but it will be reduced as described above.

[Biggus]

Voxpop,

While your comments regarding AFPS05 are "technically correct", you massively mispaint the situation.

On AFPS05 if you have done the correct number of years to qualify for an immediate pension, but leave before your 55 point, then you do get paid a monthly sum immediately. Yes you are correct that it is not a "pension" as such - it is called an Early Departure Payment (EDP) is a certain % of your final pension depending on how many years you have done. To a certain extent it looks like a pension, walks like a pension and squawks like a pension - it just wasn't allowed to be called one, by law I believe.

My brief description is still well short of describing the intricacies of AFPS05, but your implication that you get nothing on AFPS05 if you have qualified but leave before 55 is well short of the mark!

[Tiger_mate]

pension - it just wasn't allowed to be called one, by law I believe.


European directive. In the EU you must be age 55+ to be in receipt of a "pension".

[LFFC]

Here's more to worry about!

Will the Chancellor demolish pension tax breaks? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8899628/Will-the-Chancellor-demolish-pension-tax-breaks.html)

Chancellor George Osbourne may target top-rate tax relief and tax-free lump sum withdrawals in the Autumn Statement.
.
.
.

But many pension experts reckon it is too delicate an issue to axe higher-rate relief and it will turn away a large swath of voters. They say that if Mr Osborne tinkers with anything on the pension front it will be tax-free lump sums.

Best get that gratuity in the bank fast!

[Melchett01]

LFFC ... I don't see the problem. After all, we're all in this together. Right? Aren't we????? :\

The last time I saw anyone acting like Dave and George, it was in a WW2 film and the Captain was scuttling his ship. This really is totally incoherent short termism in the extreme. On the one hand they want the country to plan for its financial future, but on the other hand they do everything in their power to make that impossible by moving goal posts and robbing us blind. The answer is that nobody will plan for the future and as a result we will all be reliant on the State in one form or another in our old age - I won't say retirement because that will have gone as a concept by the next election - in complete contrast to what they state they are trying to achieve.

I do hope that the Conservatives aren't thinking past 2015 ..... they are going to be out of power for a very very long time after the next election having single handedly alienated every sector of society who might have voted for them at one time, whilst increasing the levels of animosity felt by the left of society to levels that I can't remember since the Thatcher era. And frankly, good riddance (and I'm saying that as a conservative by instinct!) :mad:

[orca]

Where would one stand wrt a Return Of Service if 'they' changed your pension substantially? Would you be able to argue that the circumstances were exceptional and that you would have never accepted the ROS under the new scheme...therefore allowing you to depart the fix before the blood letting started?

[3 bladed beast]

Orca

Spot on. When there are significant changes to our allowances, we sit back, unable to do a alot about it. When they change the pension from RPI to CPI, we seem unable to change this ( E petition aside) BUT when the change is that dramatic, that potentially the lump sum promised and the IPP of 38 is taken away, that would be enough for most I would suspect.

For me, like others, it is the ONLY thing that is retaining my services.

I just wonder how much the MPs have voted to reduces their pensions and allowances. Oh, that's right. :ugh:

[Voxpop]

No intention to misrepresent - simply answering the question. AFPS 05 is in a different statutory instrument to the EDP scheme. Here are the facts on EDP.

When AFPS 05 was being written, the intention was that it should be AFPS 75 with whistles and bells - including an IP. However, the Revenue told us that it would be outlawing pensions before age 55 except in case of ill-health with effect from 6 April 2006. So, back to the drawing board and the EDP was devised and is quite separate to the pension scheme.

To qualify for EDP you must leave after having served at least 18 yrs and having reached at least age 40 (but before age 55). You will get a lump sum normally equal to your pension lump sum (the 'normally' is to cover those with a pension sharing order who, although sharing their pension, will not be seeing a reduction in their EDP lump sum) and income, at the 18/40 point, of normally (for the same reason) 50% of the value of the preserved pension.

Anyone serving beyond the EDP 18/40 point will get an additional 1.6667% of preserved pension for each additional year served.

You can leave with an EDP and transfer your pension out of AFPS 05. You can leave with an EDP and have your pension paid early with actuarial reduction at any age after age 55.

If you wish to have your personal position set out for you join the Forces Pension Society ( The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk) ) and we will delighted to help.

[coffindodger]

If you draw a Service Pension take note









































The recent Forces Pension Society newsletter tells of an RPI/CPI e-petition which has been established hoping to reverse the Government's decision to link pension increases to CPI instead of RPI. The Government will debate e-petitions that achieve 100,000 signatures, so please can you pass on the following link to ex-servicemen that you know in the hope that they'll sign it, as it affects all of us. The link is:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535/signature/new























Public & Private Pension Increases - change from RPI to CPI


Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions


Many workers in the Public and Private Sector have contributed to their pensions on the understanding that on retirement these Pensions would be increased each April by the preceding September's Retail Price Index (RPI) rate. From April 2011 the Government has transferred these increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure which in the Treasury's own words "...is designed to take account of the fact that consumers tend to shop around, switching to cheaper alternatives when prices of similar goods change." This change, which has been introduced in most cases without any prior consultation, will mean a steady reduction in spending power for pensioners as they progress into their retirement. Given the promises that have previously been made, the RPI measure should be reintroduced without delay to ensure that the spending power of these Public and Private pensioners is maintained.




NB The change from RPI to CPI as a measure of general inflation was, of course, introduced to the UK by that well-known financial genius, Gordon Brown MP. His reason? Purely and simply to reduce government expenditure. While there isn't (and won't ever be) a single, universal and accurate measure of inflation, the CPI has consistently run at around 0.5 to 1.5% per annum less than the RPI. They look to be tiny figures, but CPI won't half reduce the real value of your pension, in double-quick time. Don't let Osborne get away with it! Sign up now, and forward to all your serving and ex-Service mates.







If you draw a Service Pension take note









































The recent Forces Pension Society newsletter tells of an RPI/CPI e-petition which has been established hoping to reverse the Government's decision to link pension increases to CPI instead of RPI. The Government will debate e-petitions that achieve 100,000 signatures, so please can you pass on the following link to ex-servicemen that you know in the hope that they'll sign it, as it affects all of us. The link is:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535/signature/new























Public & Private Pension Increases - change from RPI to CPI


Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions


Many workers in the Public and Private Sector have contributed to their pensions on the understanding that on retirement these Pensions would be increased each April by the preceding September's Retail Price Index (RPI) rate. From April 2011 the Government has transferred these increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure which in the Treasury's own words "...is designed to take account of the fact that consumers tend to shop around, switching to cheaper alternatives when prices of similar goods change." This change, which has been introduced in most cases without any prior consultation, will mean a steady reduction in spending power for pensioners as they progress into their retirement. Given the promises that have previously been made, the RPI measure should be reintroduced without delay to ensure that the spending power of these Public and Private pensioners is maintained.




NB The change from RPI to CPI as a measure of general inflation was, of course, introduced to the UK by that well-known financial genius, Gordon Brown MP. His reason? Purely and simply to reduce government expenditure. While there isn't (and won't ever be) a single, universal and accurate measure of inflation, the CPI has consistently run at around 0.5 to 1.5% per annum less than the RPI. They look to be tiny figures, but CPI won't half reduce the real value of your pension, in double-quick time. Don't let Osborne get away with it! Sign up now, and forward to all your serving and ex-Service mates.




If you draw a Service Pension take note









































The recent Forces Pension Society newsletter tells of an RPI/CPI e-petition which has been established hoping to reverse the Government's decision to link pension increases to CPI instead of RPI. The Government will debate e-petitions that achieve 100,000 signatures, so please can you pass on the following link to ex-servicemen that you know in the hope that they'll sign it, as it affects all of us. The link is:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535/signature/new
















Public & Private Pension Increases - change from RPI to CPI


Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions


Many workers in the Public and Private Sector have contributed to their pensions on the understanding that on retirement these Pensions would be increased each April by the preceding September's Retail Price Index (RPI) rate. From April 2011 the Government has transferred these increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure which in the Treasury's own words "...is designed to take account of the fact that consumers tend to shop around, switching to cheaper alternatives when prices of similar goods change."

This change, which has been introduced in most cases without any prior consultation, will mean a steady reduction in spending power for pensioners as they progress into their retirement. Given the promises that have previously been made, the RPI measure should be reintroduced without delay to ensure that the spending power of these Public and Private pensioners is maintained.



NB The change from RPI to CPI as a measure of general inflation was, of course, introduced to the UK by that well-known financial genius, Gordon Brown MP. His reason? Purely and simply to reduce government expenditure.

While there isn't (and won't ever be) a single, universal and accurate measure of inflation, the CPI has consistently run at around 0.5 to 1.5% per annum less than the RPI. They look to be tiny figures, but CPI won't half reduce the real value of your pension, in double-quick time.

Don't let Osborne get away with it!

Sign up now, and forward to all your serving and ex-Service mates.

[F.O.D]

Whilst I agree that as many as possible should sign the CPI/RPI petition, I fear that George Osborne may have more cunning plans up his sleeve. Last year, he changed the index for benefit and pension inflation uplifts from RPI to CPI (awaiting a high court judgement of the legality of this change). As CPI is higher than he would like, he is apparently looking for other more imaginative ways to calculate inflation to produce an answer that he does like!! On Friday AM, the BBC were reporting that he was seeking to increase benefits (and possibly pensions) by a 6 month average inflation figure of nearer 4%, thereby avoiding the peak figure of 5.2% for September. Presumably this is so he can divert more UK taxpayers' money as aid to regional nuclear superpowers such as India. You couldn't make it up. Stalin could have learnt something from these thieves. Hopefully some of the grown ups (if there are any left) in the Tory party will persuade him to desist.

[Melchett01]

Lunchboxlegend,

I agree entirely - they are all as bad as each other. But right now, frankly I can't help but feel the cure is worse than the illness. If I have to listen to Cameron and Osborne remind us how we are all in it together just once more, I'd be sorely tempted to write to my local MP pointing out that this is nothing more than Animal Farm writ large. We are all in this together, but some are in it more than others.

Barring the odd Guards and Cavalry Regts, the vast majority of the Forces fall squarely into the squeezed middle. But not only are we getting squeezed on a daily basis, the Forces have been squeezed further by successive chancellors, and not just in terms of overall equipment levels. During the good times when pay rises across the country were heading north, the Forces' weren't; our pay rises were capped in the interests of preventing inflation - like our pay levels would have an impact on inflation compared to the sort of rises doing the rounds in the City and FTSE 100 boards. Now the country is heading south we are getting squeezed again in an attempt to bolster the government's incoherent and dubious policies. And again, in the grand scheme of things, what our pensions would cost is small change in comparison with what the government doles out to the EU and on various other pet projects and the likely costs incurred when our pensions are whittled down to levels that are so low we are forced into the arms of the benefits system once retired. Whether by design, by accident or through ignorance, the impact of what they are doing will condemn us all to a life of working til we drop.

Our pensions were changed from 75 to 05 not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to save money. The change from RPI to CPI - of which a number of institutions such as the Bank of England have not adopted - will cost the average person thousands over the years, the introduction of pensions tax rules that leads to tax bills on promotion and now potentially taxing gratuities - the electorally safe option and therefore most likely compared to binning tax relief on contributions - will drive yet another nail into the Forces' coffin.

But unlike the rest of the country we have no one to fight out corner and frankly we are getting done over because we are the easy option. Those at the top won't rock the boat too hard; they'll do just enough to cause a ripple in the afternoon sherries being passed around the mandarins' offices so as to be seen to be doing something, but precious little else lest they damage their carefully engineered escape route. With all that happening to our pensions inside a few short years I don't see how anybody can say we aren't getting screwed over royally. The only voice we have will come at the next election, but with the ever shrinking size of the Forces, we would be lucky to be able to oust just one or 2 MPs in the election through protest votes even if we could pool all our votes. But if it helps ease the pain, remember we're all in it together and it's for the benfit of the country :(

[Lima Juliet]

As I said in Post #51...

BANK!

[LFFC]

The only voice we have will come at the next election, but with the ever shrinking size of the Forces, we would be lucky to be able to oust just one or 2 MPs in the election through protest votes even if we could pool all our votes.

The PM should remember that he has a sizeable military vote in his constituency - perhaps larger than it was 18 months ago!

Witney (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/david_cameron/witney)

[sidewayspeak]

As I said in Post #51...

BANK!

I've done exactly that... no redundancies in my branch in Tranche 2, so taking my 22/44 Option. Bit nervous as to the future - getting out in a recession is probably not the best time, but it's time to take control of my life and stop reacting to what is imposed on me.

So commute to dump the mortgage, pension to pay the bills and the job hunt begins.

[Al R]

Melchett's comment about the cure being worse than the illness struck a chord. What is the illness? Complication, in my opinion. EVERYTHING we do in life has become so multi facetted, so layered with meaningless or counter productive, self serving beaurocracy that society as we know it is probbaly already institutionally unmanageable and the traditional method of government is probably unsustainable. Bizarrely, our Bond yields have held up, not because (as George Osborne suggests), we are the safe haven in the EU, but because we have a political system in place that can make decisions. God help the rest of them if thats the case.

[OpsO1000]

This could have a devastating effect on people like me (and Harrier 123) who've done 11 years of a 16 year commission and were planning on going at the end of commission. Potentially we will no longer receive an immediate pension and have to wait until we're 60. This means we will miss out on 20 years of full pension ie nearly £1/4million...!

There will obviously be hell on by those affected and, I'd imagine loads of PVRs as there'll be no incentive to stay....

'Preserved rights' can be interpreted in many ways. If you haven't done your full 16 years then you could not 'qualify' for anything and potentially get zero immediate pension Despite working for 11 of those years on the assumption that you were working towards an immediate pension.

[Scuttled]

OpsO1000

Fella, I really hope that you are getting this very wrong indeed. My understanding is that just about the only thing you can count on is that what you have earned to date, you will keep.

So, if it all changes in 2015 (for arguments sake) you will at your 16/38 point get 14 or 15 16ths of your currently expected immediate pension. Worst case then is that you will wait 20 odd years to get the other 1 or 2 16ths that you earned after the rules changed.

But it's all a guessing game and my guess is based on nothing but heresay.

So you may be b*ggered after all. Happy to help.

[orca]

When we were last visited by the AFPRB we pressed on exactly this issue. The reply was that earnt 'years in' would be kept, but that wouldn't necessarily be reflected in 'rewards earnt'.

i.e. As a AFPS 75 member, having been in 16 years and therefore earnt an immediate pension would translate to 16 'year credits' in the new scheme - but not necessarily an immediate pension.

As I am no expert I immediately joined the FPS.

Oh and promised to leave before it mattered.

[3 bladed beast]

It would be very interesting to know what will happen to people currently drawing a pension as well. Where will the cut off point be?

Let's assume Flt Lt X retires in Jan 2015 and receives a full payment, immediate pension. Does Flt Lt Y who retires in the May 2015 ( and on new terms) not receive his immediate pension?

I'm really not sure the legalities of all of this, but if people in very similar situations, who have paid, contributed and sacrificed the same, get two completely different pensions?

The uncertainty of it all is actually causing a lot of people undue stress and worry. I've only stayed in these last couple of years on the promise of this pension.

[OpsO1000]

I think people generally understand that we have very good pensions and they will be cut, somehow, when the government is skint.

However, early 2012 we could be told that after doing, say 15 years 11 months of a 16 year commission on the old terms, you may not be entitled to a penny at the 16 year point and instead get nothing until you're 60. Like I said above, that would amount to about £1/4million in a Flt Lt's case. That would seem massively disproportionate rather than trimming some of the 'gold plate'.

Like Scuttled says, I hope they would still pay you an immediate pension but only the proportion of time served on the old pension scheme and any time spent on the new scheme preserved until 60. But, as Orca says, no-one has been able to state that this will happen in the briefings given already. I can't help thinking there are going to be some very nasty shocks for people in my position.

[cazatou]

Just a thought from a KOS.

What will be the effect on a Widows pension when She may have herself and several children to cater for?

[Biggus]

Might I dare to suggest that people wait until they have a few facts to discuss, rather than pick over "what if scenarios" between now and the time when anything is actually announced...

[orca]

Lunchbox

Old chap let's be very clear about one thing...absolutely no one has mentioned an Immediate Pension Point. Quite the opposite. They have very deliberately spoken of 'normal retirement age' and reinforced that with '55 for AFPS 75' etc, hence the statement that those over 45 will probably see no change.

It is entirely plausible that the '16 year point' will disappear. Unless you are 45 plus you have things to consider. If you are past a 16 year point in Mar 15 then you have the (possibly very attractive) option to walk.

And why wouldn't you? As is often stated, our pensions are brilliant. But you have to leave to get it.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Reading some of the whining on here I have to wonder how some folk ever got through the Biggen Hill/Cranwell thing....:confused:

[Short Lift Wet]

Suspect you mean Biggin Hill. It's quite famous.

I clearly remember venturing in an interview that a 16 year commission suited me as it not only demonstrated commitment on my part, but would be rewarded with a pension. This was met with the absolute approval of the lady interviewing me.

Of course if you did mean Biggen Hill I apologise profusely. Was that an establishment where 54 year olds expressed dismay at the attitude of youngsters from the safety of being 9 years inside the 'won't be touched' criteria?

[The B Word]

:D

Cracking first post, me old!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Suspect you mean Biggin Hill. It's quite famous.

I clearly remember venturing in an interview that a 16 year commission suited me as it not only demonstrated commitment on my part, but would be rewarded with a pension. This was met with the absolute approval of the lady interviewing me. And of course from that day on every single person you have ever met has either told you the truth or told you things will never change :rolleyes:

Of course if you did mean Biggen Hill I apologise profusely. Was that an establishment where 54 year olds expressed dismay at the attitude of youngsters from the safety of being 9 years inside the 'won't be touched' criteria?
Apologies for the spelling mistake, it would seem that a combination of the pub to watch footy as Mrs SFFP held some sort of Candle Party and IPad with it's ability to compulsory spool chuck has caught me out.

20 or so years ago when I went through it was also the place where rigorous testing of candidates was carried out with regard to a whole bunch of differing criterion including aptitude. Clearly if some folk think Prune is the font of all knowledge on this subject and that a verbal promise given all those years ago was somehow set in tablets of stone the entrance bar must have lowered some what over the years.

[Albert Another]

Biggus,

I agree that guess work is not always helpful. However, the problem is that no one has any facts & there are no accessible official avenues to voice concerns. Enquires to the appropriate SME hit dead ends. At some point there must be a consultation period and these worries OR envisage worries need to be known by those making the decisions on the future pension.

Timing to engage with the workforce is critical. Potential changes could scupper your financial planning for the last 25 years. If so then people may, regrettably, be forced out prior to any changes happening. i.e. at options or on PVR (~mid 2013 to be out by 2015). That is only 18 months away! The air force could lose many experienced & previously loyal staff.

:(

[Melchett01]

Enquires to the appropriate SME hit dead ends

And that is half the problem - the total lack of any information or even holding responses is appaling and doing nothing other than creating even more uncertainty and further dips in morale. I had the misfortune to have to ring JPAC / SVPA / whoever it is this week to ask a question about AVCs and how they might be impacted by pension changes only to be asked by the woman on the other end of the line 'what pension changes?'. When I suggested that pension changes were afoot in light of the Hutton report, they denied all knowledge and suggested I was mistaken as they hadn't been briefed. :ugh:

So those that should know don't and those that you would hope might know at least in which direction things are going are remaining silent without so much as an update or indication of what is being considered. Given that level of uncertainty, people will just take what they have and walk if an IP at an option point is the only concrete information they have. Out of interest, has there been any announcement on when we might get an update? Only asking because as part of the diaspora, I generally receive the IBNs about 2 weeks after they have ceased to be meaningful or relevant.

[Scuttled]

SFFP

I really think you should consider...... oh I really cannot be ar*ed. Grow up fella.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

SFFP

I really think you should consider...... oh I really cannot be ar*ed. Grow up fella.

No, go on, tell me what I should consider.............

[Al R]

I hope its ok to post this here, I know there are some people waiting for news concerning pay news and possible changes to (personal) pension legislation. George Osborne has announced that he is capping public sector pay increases at 1% in the 2 years following the end of the pay freeze. Not sure if this is going to apply to special merit cases though.

[Al R]

50% tax relief on certain EIS/VCT type investments.. a 12 month CGT holiday on and investments into SEED schemes (must be this: Tax-advantaged venture capital schemes: a consultation - HM Treasury (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_tax_advantaged_venture_capital_schemes.htm) ) - that should make some people happy.. (irrespective of personal Marginal Rate??).

No mentions that I can see or heard concerning changes to Higher Rate tax relief for personal pensions or the taking of (pension commencement) tax free cash, which had been mentioned as a possibility by some.

[VinRouge]

with CPI significantly above 1%, I bet there will be a couple out there better off to leave early if they get the chance....

[LFFC]

It means, in real terms, that over the 4 years of pay cap, public sector pay and pensions will have reduced by about 20%. And that's before any changes to the military pension schemes.

I guess that's why so many in the public sector will be on strike tomorrow.

[Just This Once...]

One fine chap I work with has done his sums (he is nearly 51) and recons his pension will be worth more if he leaves now and rides the CPI rate rather than the pay freeze/cap. His PVR has been accepted and he is negotiating an early release from the 6 month waiting period.

It's another kick in the teeth.

[LFFC]

It's actually really quite a smart strategy by the government; print more money, accept the high inflation rate that results from doing so, keep interest rates low, freeze public sector pay and pensions, sit tight and wait for the debts to shrink away.

Sadly though, the cost of most PFI deals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9647000/9647431.stm) for provision of a service are index linked! What a dreadful mistake entering into those deals must seem to the Treasury now!

[VinRouge]

A good time to hold assets instead of cash too.

[hello1]

The Forces Pension Society newsletter today had no significant news on the new pension scheme so some of the alarm is definitely premature and should be saved up for some genuine alarm and necessary desperation in the future.

More alarming I think is the today's 1% cap on top of a 2 year pay freeze. LFFC is quite correct that pension entitlement on leaving will reduce significantly in real terms but inflation is forecast to drop next year (I know, we'll see) so it might not be as bad as 20% but it is bad enough to suggest an immediate exit is worth considering for anyone who can leave.

I think that AFPS 05 has a protection built in for this kind of thing. It would be worth joining the Pension Society and checking before reaching for the Mess Webley!:ooh:

[The Old Fat One]

Good time to read a book, climb a mountain or **** the ****. Anything rather than watch the news or buy a paper.

It'll all be the same in a hundred years.

[sidewayspeak]

One fine chap I work with has done his sums (he is nearly 51) and recons his pension will be worth more if he leaves now and rides the CPI rate rather than the pay freeze/cap. His PVR has been accepted and he is negotiating an early release from the 6 month waiting period.

It's another kick in the teeth.

Can someone please explain this to a KOS. I thought that if you leave before 55 your immediate pension was effectively frozen until you reached age 55 and then it was lifted in line with retrospective inflation from 55 onwards. Or something? :confused:

[Just This Once...]

sideways, you have it right. The chap in question will receive a non-indexed linked pension for over 3 years but at age 55 the indexing against CPI will be applied in a big lump. If he stays in his AFPS75 pension will hardly increase at all and the value of his gratuity will have been eroded by inflation (no pay rise so the only increase in pension will be due to number of years served).

He was surprised how little increase in value his pension would receive by serving the additional 3 or so years and has chosen to take his gratuity and his pension now. The FPS did the calculations for him and it suits his circumstances. I was taken aback by the tiny increase in his pension if he had served the remaining years and it has got a few others I work with in the same age bracket thinking about their life choices!

Comparing an indexed linked pension with non-index linked pay is an interesting prospect for those whose finances have been prepared for retirement.

[Lima Juliet]

Even more glad I "banked" my pension 2 months ago. My pension should grow by 5.2% this year and probably similar next year with only 9ish years to run to index linking again :ok:

Also, glad to have started a new scheme where I get 1/70th for every year I work now until 60.

I suspect it may have been one of the brightest moves of my life...

...I did have to give up the free medical, dental and HTD allowances though.:p

I also worked out that I was significantly better off doing the resettlement commute. I took £4800 off my pension to raise £39k tax free and I will be paying that for just shy of 10 years (call it £48k). However, as a top rate 40% taxpayer I would be giving the Govt £19200 in tax for that £48k over the same period if I didn't commute; which would mean in real terms I pay £28800 to raise £39k - so I'm £10200 better off over the next 9.6years (call it £1k a year for cash!).

LJ

[Greenielynxpilot]

You're not a top rate tax payer if you are only paying 40%. You are a higher rate tax payer, that is all.

Come back when you gross £150k and then we'll allow you to indulge in a little smugness ;)

[Lima Juliet]

Whatever!
:ok:

Yes, I am feeling smug for once. However, I hope my illustration on commutation helps as well?

LJ

Smug: on

PS I grossed more than £150k this tax year but luckily for me £112k is tax free! :E

Smug: off

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Smug is working till 55, leaving with a 6 figure handout and a mid 30's pension, topping that up with property rent, never working again because all you bils are paid and spending the rest of your life out of the rat race, travelling far and wide, spending each day in the sun and smiling :ok:

Nothing short of a Euro Millions win can possibly top that for me :p

Standing by for the inevitable queue of the usual suspects telling us military folk how marvelous life is since leaving the service :rolleyes:

[St Johns Wort]

Let me be the first. Loving retirement:ok:

Where were you last Friday?

[VinRouge]

SFFP, dont you worry, my generation will have its pound of flesh when you a all in nursing homes dribbling in your soup and we come to power! the boomer generation is widely regarded my my generation as having fed on their own childrens futures to feather their own nests!

[charliegolf]

On pensions generally, given the state of the economy.......

Am I being a bit neurotic in having a nagging worry that the gits might simply come out and say,

"We're so skint that we're cutting public service pensions currently in payment by x %. Sorry, but that is the way it is, and oh, there's no appeal."

I'm on finals for pension (gold plated, natch) and this is my one big fear about giving notice.

CG

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Even if they take 25% of mine it will still leave me with more money a month than most young couples earn between them so it is hardly going to put either you or I in the poor house is it :ok:

[SAMXXV]

Just to reassure some of you:

I retired from the RAF in 1997 at the age of 41. I went for a Resetlement Commutation which reduced my pension from approx £9500 to £7346 & gave me a £44,000 lump sum instead of £24,000 (to pay my mortgage off). Obviously, the value of £7346 in 1997 to what it buys in 2011 has had a dramatic effect this year! I smoke, I drink & like expensive cars!

It was (despite the monthly watching of the pennies) the best thing I ever did. I don't have any spare cash until December but have a house that I own outright & currently for sale for £450,000 to move abroad to die in penury (:cool:)

When I see/read about the "poor" Civil Servants striking today my heart weeps for them (not).

The good news is that in 7 days time I am 55. The original £9500 pension is restored & the RPI/CPI index linking is backdated & applied from 1997. My pension now becomes £14,586 (forecast obtained from Xafinity) in December with a 5.2% increase on that in April 2012.

Happy days.:ok:

[charliegolf]

Seldom,

My 'package' isn't the mil one, so is roughly 60% of yours. No, I wouldn't be in the workhouse. Just interested if others thought my worry is an irrational one or not. I could easily do another year at £60k to soften the blow.

CG

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

The Forces Pension Society - Don't Forget: The Armed Forces Don't Strike (http://www.forcespensionsociety.org/news/news-releases/the-armed-forces-dont-strike/)

Major General John Moore-Bick, General Secretary of the Forces Pension Society issued a statement to coincide with the ‘Day of Action’ strikes planned for 30th November. He said “don’t forget that members of the Armed Forces cannot take strike action. They cannot join trade union activities. Those who serve their country loyally in this unique way forgo many rights others take for granted”. In addition to their many concerns about operational demands, redundancy and reconfiguration, with all the family turbulence which that portends, Service personnel have widespread uneasiness and worries about pensions and future terms of service, with some elements in common with the rest of the public sector. Contrary to many official statements, military pensions are neither gold-plated, nor free. A Serviceman’s fair rate of pay is reduced or abated, partly in respect of his pension entitlement, the only significant financial recompense he receives for the exceptional risk and hardships of a job in the Armed Forces. Service personnel do not routinely have a clear statement of what they accrue, and they are increasingly subject to rumour and uncertainly as yet another new pension scheme is generated for them.
Furthermore, the Forces Pension Society shares the concerns of public sector workers over the potential downgrading of pensions resulting from the move away from Retail Price Index linking to the Consumer Price Index. For members of the Armed Forces community, this will result in many cases in the loss of tens, even hundreds of thousands of pounds over the life of their pensionable service entitlement. The change is also contrary to the many promises of RPI indexation made in every written publication, given to Service personnel when enlisting in the Armed Forces, and during their subsequent careers.
Therefore the Society sympathises with the concerns of those in the public service sector especially over the change in indexation, even though the Armed Forces community, both serving and retired will not join them in their action.

[Pontius Navigator]

Even more glad I "banked" my pension 2 months ago. My pension should grow by 5.2% this year and probably similar next year with only 9ish years to run to index linking again

Yes, I am feeling smug for once. However, I hope my illustration on commutation helps as well?

If you think you will be getting a 5.2% increase on your military pension think again. It was only the basic State old-age pension that got the full index link last year and it will probably be the same next year.

My SERPS element, my military pension and my CS pension all increased at a lower rate. I heard 3% might be nearer the mark.

[radar101]

If you think you will be getting a 5.2% increase on your military pension think again. It was only the basic State old-age pension that got the full index link last year and it will probably be the same next year.

My SERPS element, my military pension and my CS pension all increased at a lower rate. I heard 3% might be nearer the mark.


5.2% IS the lower rate (CPI - which we got on the military pension last year) The basic state pension last year was the last of the RPI years which is why there was a difference - they are all CPI now.

[Pontius Navigator]

Well I hope you are right.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Let me be the first. Loving retirement:ok:

Where were you last Friday?

Short finals here to our first Grandchild so wimped out, pity really as there is still no bloody sign of her arriving :ok:

[VinRouge]

The public sector consists of two tiers. Those who are essential, ie pilots, police constables, nurses and the other larger tier, consisting of bat environment facilitators, health and safety inspectors and JPA auditors. Private sector pensions would be perfectly affordable if there werent as many proles enrolled in the system.

[Grumpy106]

Interesting to see that all the marchers yesterday (what there were of them) just left all their rubbish on the streets for their fellow workers (ie, bin-men) to pick up. Elitist, moi? no, not at all!!

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Switch from RPI to CPI ruled lawful, Teachers Union are appealing.

BBC News - Pension switch ruled lawful by High Court (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15999970)

The government's public sector pensions policy has been given a major boost following a ruling at the High Court.
Trade unions brought a judicial review of the way Consumer Prices Index (CPI) was now being used instead of the faster-rising Retail Prices Index (RPI) for pensions inflation proofing.
The High Court has ruled that the government's switch was lawful.
The decision affects the value of pension increases for millions of public sector pensioners.
The policy also saves the government many millions of pounds in the coming years and is a major area of disagreement amid the public sector pensions dispute.
Up to two million public sector workers went on strike on Wednesday.
Pension shift The new CPI inflation-proofing policy was first applied in April this year.
It saw pensioners in schemes covering civil servants, teachers, NHS employees, local government and others, receiving an increase of 3.1% instead of 4.6%.
On Tuesday, new projections published at the time of the Autumn Statement showed government is now assuming the gap between the measures will widen from 1.2 to 1.4 percentage points a year.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent but government-funded economic forecaster, said that by 2016 the gap between CPI and RPI could be as high as 1.8 percentage points, predicting that CPI will go down to 2% by then, while RPI stays higher at 3.8%.
Lord Hutton's independent report on public service pensions (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indreview_johnhutton_pensions.htm), whose final report was published earlier this year, calculated that the unfunded public pension schemes (a definition that included all but the local government scheme) would save £1.8bn a year in cash payments by 2015-16 due to the move to CPI.
However, that saving will be much greater if the OBR's forecast of a wider divergence between the two inflation measures proves to be true.
If state benefits and tax credits - also affected by the policy - are included in the calculations, then the average annual government saving could be £6bn. The decision does not affect how the state pension is increased each year.
Government lawyers argued that ministers are entitled to consider the CPI to be "a more appropriate measure of changes in the general level of prices".
The trade unions' lawyers had argued that the government had acted beyond its powers. The NASUWT teaching union said it planned to appeal the High Court's decision.

[Red Line Entry]

Yes, but do they get a tax free lump sum of three times the pension? If not, then it seems their scheme is not that dissimilar to AFPS75 (in terms of overall benefits and stand fast the choice they get over contributions).

[FFP]

Does anyone really expect the 16 yr point to be a viable option for the chop come 2015 ? For instance, all those on PC's whose exit date is 2015 would be kicked out of the door (unless they got PA / promoted) and then get nothing till 55 or whatever age they subsequently determine pensions should be paid at?

And if that is an option, surely people would need to be given advance warning of such ?

That would be a huge, huge deal, esp if your exit date is 2015 but 16 yrs service comes in at 2014.......;)

[Herc-u-lease]

FFP,

that is a huge concern for me - as you can see from my (genuine) age, my 38/16 point is in early 2016, but my 16 point will have be reached in 2015.

Pulling the rug from under my feet would leave a big hole in my planned finances. The IPP and gratuity are the only reason I'm currently staying in. Otherwise, I might as well leave now, accept the preserved pension and only be fractionally worse off. I expect common sense will have to prevail and a system of accrued rights be payable at the 38 point for those of us on AFPS 75 and the remainder preserved.

However, i've never planned my finances solely relying on the mil pension just in case something like this does happen. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

H

[Melchett01]

FFP,

Sounds like you are in the same boat as me - option point in 2014 and waiting to hear the outcome of the review. However, we did ask that very question at a briefing and were told that wouldn't happen.

I have to say that part of me does have a degree of sympathy for the 4 man pensions team working down in MB at the moment, if for no other reason than their names and pictures plastered on the web as being the architects of the coming train crash. That said, I'm pretty sure (well hope at least) that their role is not only to redefine military pensions, but also to protect service personnel to the best of their ability; we all know that given half a chance the Treasury would cancel all our pensions and charge us to come to work.

To avoid a mass exodus to the point that threatens the operational effectiveness, possibly even the viability, of the military as a whole, there will have to be some sort of transitional arrangement. So assuming that if you fall into the bracket of being able to draw an IP before 2015 but stay on, I would hope that the promise of keeping what you have already accrued would mean that if you stayed in past 2015, you would be able to draw whatever you had earned up to that point with the rest being paid under some sort of transitional arrangements - possibly in the same way they have increased the state pension age - i.e. retirement at 55 for one age bracket, 56 for another, 57 for a third etc.

[FFP]

Cheers everyone, my thoughts too. Being so close, a change like that would have a huge effect on my plans. I too would go earlier if the gratuity / immediate pension was taken away. I'm hoping it won't be as severe as that !

[Voxpop]

As soon as we have the Framework Document we will put it on our website ( The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk) ) and flag it up here.

We at the Forces Pension Society have be given to expect that Immediate Pensions would be honoured to the extent that they had been earned on the date of transfer to the new scheme but what we need to see is the transitional proposal, in black and white, in the Framework Document.

[Red Line Entry]

Voxpop,

Any idea on whether the 'no impact on those with less than 10 years to work' policy for public servants will be applied to us too?

..although I'm still outside that window - bugger!

[FFP]

And, in addition to RLE's comment above, I believe that the IPP is not considered "retirement" age, which makes me all the more nervous.....

[harrier123]

I hope they let us know ASAP as my IP is in 2017 so if they take that away from me I will go now and start a new career.

[Jobza Guddun]

Along with an awful lot of officers and SNCOs I suspect...

[Al R]

Red Line,

That isn't policy, it was an idea suggested as a possible palliative in order to prevent the 'National Strike'. George might be looking on that now as 'offer withdrawn' or he might not. It all depends on whether the Unions believe there is mileage in calling everyone out again.

But, if it was introduced, there would still be people just outside the cut off date and there would still be anger ie; 54 years 364 days old on April 1 2015 (or whatever it is, I haven't had a coffee yet and my brain is still dead). Far better to have a tapering down system that is fairer to all (in my 'umble opinion).

Edit: This might offer a steer.

BBC News - New NHS pensions offer expected from government (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16081502)

[Melchett01]

If the reporting is correct, then Dave, George and Beaker are now considering lowering the 50K annual pensions contribution threshold to 30 / 40k in next month's budget.

http://http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/pension-savers-take-a-second-hit-as-mps-eye-annual-allowance-cut/a566612?ref=citywire-money-latest-news-list (http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/pension-savers-take-a-second-hit-as-mps-eye-annual-allowance-cut/a566612?ref=citywire-money-latest-news-list)

According to the Financial Times, ministers are eyeing a cut to the £50,000 pension annual allowance as a way to save money. Everyone is currently entitled to receive tax relief on pensions contributions up to £50,000 a year but this could be reduced to either £30,000 or £40,000 in next month’s Budget.



So rather than just certain ranks getting a tax bill on promotion, if it goes down to 30k, just how many across the Armed Forces will be faced with a pensions-related tax bill each year because of the way the Treasury calculates what our annual contributions are deemed to be? :uhoh:

If they do this, the Treasury & MOD will be kicking themselves; if they had hung on just a little bit longer, they could have saved on redundancy payments :sad:

[VinRouge]

What happens if aircrew get together and refuse to accept the pensions changes, instead requiring an immediate termination of contract sans the 12 month 25% flying pay cut?

Its going to look pretty bad when it turns out they are forcing through major terms to our terms and conditions without an immediate option to leave (or option to refuse changes and thus terminate)? It certainly is going to put the cat amongst the pigeons. If my IPP goes or I get taxed on my (reduced) gratuity, sorry, but I am off. And so are a significant number of others serving on the front line. Lets see how quickly they can get the bean counters flying aircraft shall we? :rolleyes: Or, are the pensions changes worth the roughly 3-5 million it costs to train us?

[Albert Another]

Has anyone heard anything about the Consultation Period for changes to the Armed Forces pension? It was due early this year to capture views from around the services.

There needs to be mass involvement by those affected to ensure the powers that be are aware of the gravity of any loss of immediate pension or gratuity.

The potential impact on manpower through experienced people leaving or those remaining losing the 'can do attitude' MUST be communicated firmly and clearly.

[harrier123]

If they get rid of IP at the 16 year point I will be off. I also expect many more will be who are currently around the 10 year point.

[Melchett01]

Harrier123,

These proposed changes are far more insidious than simply scrapping the 16/38 IP. Given the way that the Treasury and HMRC calculates pensions means that if the annual contribution is limited to 40K/p.a., this could quite conceivably lead to people - not particualrly senior ones at that - getting a tax bill every year based on their pension. If you then get promoted, standby for a potentially eye watering bill.

So whilst at the moment it's only promotion above sqn ldr (I believe sqn ldr - wg cdr and a couple of the air ranks) that are hit by this charge, can you imagine the damage caused to Defence when it becomes apparent that flt lts and those on equivalent salaries / pensions start to get a pensions-linked tax bill on top of an effective income tax rate of 50%? And based on how the deemed contributions are calculated, with an actuarial factor of 16 applied, it probably won't be that difficult to hit a 40 or even 30K limit each year.

This is totally incoherent thinking by the government, designed purely to appeal to mob rule against bankers and financiers, but which we are dragged in to. On the one hand people are encouraged to save, but when they do, they are obviously wealthy if they can afford to put money away (is that an implicit admission of just how expensive the UK is to live in???) and thus are ripe for getting hit by a tax bill. That many other ordinary individuals are going be caught up in it means nothing to our millionaire cabinet members who just want to get re-elected and continue to enjoy the trappings of power before drawing their platinum plated pensions.

[VinRouge]

Is it just me or can people see major trouble ahead for the armed forces and senior leadership? Its not just pensions; the changes afoot have already made a couple of very capable junior officers turn round to seniors and declare their hand - that promotion isn't worth the stress when you compare the crap to the monetary gain. And believe me, the pension is THE ONLY reason it seems today that people are seeking promotion. Most are now biffing off JOD or whatever it is called and giving bristol groundschool a call. Who blames them?

Get yourself to WinCo, hit your ceiling and look forward to 5 years in a non-flying related job sans Flying Pay according to the new career path for senior officers.


sounds as if the idea of promotion seriously (and increasingly) sucks c0ck. And as many are pointing out, where will be the political will for new and significant FRI in the current age of austerity? I cant see it happening until a full retention crisis is upon us. At least a senior manager at tescos doesnt put up with a 100% audit rate on their allowances system.

Mediocrity - the new standard. :ugh:

[OKOC]

There isn't much support opposing this change as only 9074 people have signed the EPetition opposing this change here: Ministry of Defence - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/departments/16)

It needs 100,000 to get aired in HoC.

[Voxpop]

We at the Forces Pension Society had understood that the consultation period was supposed to be concluded by the end of March. However, time is running out for this to be achieved as the Framework Document for the proposed new scheme has not been published yet. I will seek an update and post what I find here. Once the document is available it will be posted on our website ( The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk) ).

[orca]

Perhaps the lack of overt support for an e-petition is a case of:

1. Military types being institutionally cautious about e-petitions.
2. Military types knowing that wrt actually having the desired effect an airing in The House is as likely to succeed as a Baghdad paper round.
3. Military types instead joining the AFPS as a means to ensure that someone knowledgable is fighting their cause.
4. We're all actually waiting to see what the initial document says, after all, you can't fight what you can't see.

[3 bladed beast]

Vin Rouge

I for one will be downing tools along side you...

It will take a collective action to show the effects of their decisions.

I've had enough. 4 years to go and counting.

:ugh:

[Al R]

Vin Rouge: Mediocrity - the new standard.

The way ahead for maxxing the benefits from a Final Salary career average pension scheme too..? ;)

The budget next month will have much in it about retirement planning too. George and Danny are currently scrapping over the future of tax free cash, higher rate tax relief, the level of tax free income allowance etc etc.

[Albert Another]

Voxpop – Thank you for letting us know as soon as you have any info. As of yet the immediate chain of command is sightless of any consultation period or planned changes. How such consequential events can be so invisible, at this stage, is staggering.


It’s a short question but where do the military stand an e-petitions? Can we sign up? Many of my colleagues & me normally just ‘Keep Calm & Carry On’ but this is all or nothing time. If we can sign the e-petition then it must be vocalised far & wide. I think many people think they are not allowed to sign, myself included.

[Charlie Time]

Just sign it anyway......I have.

[OKOC]

where do the military stand an e-petitions? Can we sign up? Many of my colleagues & me normally just ‘Keep Calm & Carry On’ but this is all or nothing time. If we can sign the e-petition then it must be vocalised far & wide. I think many people think they are not allowed to sign, myself included.

The Government website doesn't state who can or cannot vote but if you are worried about Big Brother watching you can always get your "wife" to vote ;)

[OKOC]

Submission Conditions

An e-petition may freely disagree with the government or call for changes of policy. There will be no attempt to exclude critical views. Decisions to accept or reject will be made on an impartial basis.

However, to protect this service from abuse, e-petitions must satisfy some basic conditions.

To create or sign an e-petition, you must be either:
•a British citizen
•a resident in the UK (you normally live in the UK)


These are the conditions from the official Gov't website--servicemen are not barred from signing.

[Too Old Too Soon]

Hello, first time post brought on by worry over the changes that are going to be wrought on our pensions.

At the moment, as an AFPS75 member (and according to the pension calculator), I'm expecting to receive an IP of around £13700 based on an 18year commission (I started as a short service but changed to a PC, hence 16+2 years for me) and finishing no higher than a level 9 Flt Lt (that's ambition for you, but I always plan on a worst case scenario!). I'll also hopefully get a gratuity of about 41k in my pocket on the day I leave.

This all now looks like it's going to be altered quite considerably by the change to Career Average Earnings from 2015. I'll only have 5 years left to do by that point but all the differing rumours and opinions on this thread are causing me to question what those last 5 years will bring. Will there by any monetary point to looking to get promoted to SO2 come 2015, assuming I still look to leave at 2020 when my commission comes to an end? What will be the impact on the pension I receive at my IP? Will there still be an IP? Will there be a pension calculator to help thickos like me work out what we're going to get? So many questions but no one at my work seem to have any real idea on what the financial implications will be for those of us who are relatively happy to work out our current commissions but aren't striving to stay in the service until our 50s. If the career average earnings lid comes into place in 2015 then what will the incentive be for people who are looking to say "thanks v much for all the fish but at the end of my regular commission i'm off"?

Also, what's all this about pension-linked tax bills? As stated above, I'm a bit thick so this is A-Level stuff to me. Anyone care to explain it to old stupid here?

[ALM In Waiting]

This also interests me greatly being AFPS 75 too. From what I have pieced together from the recent pensions aide memoire on the intranet it seems unlikely that IP will be honoured. I'm basing this on the fact that the 10 years to go, no change proposal only refers to the 'normal' retirement age of 55. No mention is made of IP or to being within ten years of it. I think we are likely too just retain our earned pension, ie your pension will be based on your current rank at changeover, not your longest held rank as under the new career average scheme. Sorry if this is somewhat rambling.

[Too Old Too Soon]

By 2015 I'll be a level 9 Flt Lt. I'll also be knocking on the door of promotion. From a purely "looking after number one" point of view, all I really want to know is will it be worth it? Will it be worth the grief of sucking up 5 years of crappy SO2 jobs and secondary duties (which in my branch really are pretty rubbish)? 5 more years of pay increments may make those secondary duties and crap postings a little easier to swallow, but if they career average earn my last 5 years as an SO2 all the way back to being a Fg Off then it begs the question "what's the point"?

Is this how it'll work?

When I get to Level 9 that's it, no more increments, zilch, I'm not getting any more pay rises. The carrot on the stick has always been "work a bit harder, put in the extra hours and get promoted", as the pension is final salary so it's worth sucking it up for the benefits i'll accrue in later years. Now with the final salary bit only protected until 2015, if like me you want to leave by 2020, all of a sudden where's the incentive?

[ALM In Waiting]

I'm no expert but I imagine all your pre future pension scheme service will be based on your rank at the changeover to the new system. i.e. if you made sqn ldr before the changeover all your previous service would count as sqn ldr for pension purposes, or if you were Flt lt at changeover all service would count as Flt lt. The averaging would then begin, but you would have to stay in quite a while to get your 'average' in a higher rank. I'm no expert and this is assuming quite a bit, so take it with a pinch of salt.

[Lima Juliet]

I started as a short service but changed to a PC, hence 16+2 years for me

So did I, and I could have left with a pension at 16/38 with an AFPS75 pension - so not sure how you arrived at this.

I also left recently to "bank" my gratuity and get the pension up and in payment at my 22 point. I have to say that Xafinity Paymaster are very good and the pension is exactly as advertised. I'm now earning a new pension that I hope will be better at 55/60 than it would have been if I'd stayed in on AFPS75 (plus I'm set for another tax free lump sum :ok:). After 22 years I decided it was time to look after No1.

LJ

[Too Old Too Soon]

The terms given to me to change from a SSC to a PC included a further two years service, so my exit date moved from 2018 to 2020. No idea if this is normal but that's the case for me, and for a lad who did the same a year before me.

[Lima Juliet]

I guess you're on terms of service for AFPS05 (ie. with a new 18/40 point) but remaining on AFPS75 pension - sounds like a good deal to me as they could have insisted on you moving to AFPS05 :yuk:

[ericthered7]

Too Old Too Soon,
I believe that although your terms were changed from 16/38 to 18/40 on signing for a PC from a SS you can still PVR to exit at the 16/38 point and retain and immediate pension and gratuity although it would be abated slightly due to the early exit. Try it on the calculator with an exit date 2 years early. It appears this way for my other half which is what we are banking on!!!

[Tinribs]

We are right to suspect any fiddling with the pension system

I recall being assured in the 70s we would loose nothing by the service opting out of SERPS because only the increased weekly rate would be affected not the basic

Having worked for 43 years and retired from full time at 65 I don't get a full state pension, why not, RAF time doesn't count for SERPS

Also service pre 21 doesn'y count for Offs but does for men, I didnt find that out untill after I retired

[nice castle]

Too old, it appears to be the case now that there are no guarantees. Forward planning is thus made difficult. To avoid disappointment involves planning for the worst, but hoping for the best, and expecting the unexpected.

May I say, with such a definite mindset to leave in 8 years time, are you actually enjoying your (one) life? It's not a rehearsal, and if in 6 years time you're on a bitter slog to the end, just as they pull the rug from under the pension scheme, how would you feel? Like this: :{

Have a think. If the rewards of leadership stemming from promotion don't float your boat (they're not for everyone), then the lack of cash that is affecting the military is making it a very average employer, at best. The opportunities for AT and decent exercises have been badly depleted. Professional reward is abundant due to the sandpit, but again, give it a few years and we'll all be moaning there's nothing to do but pull up a sandbag and listen to bore stories.

Sorry to sound so glum; I'm not trying to encourage you to leave, more trying to check that staying in will result in happiness!

[Uncle Ginsters]

We seem to continually hear of the global 'lack of cash' as justification for current change and hardship. Let's remember that that 'lack of cash' has just underspent sufficiently to buy a £200m C-17.

I would suggest that any 'lack of cash' for the boys and girls on the shop floor is driven only by the penny-pinching mentality of those above us who perceive savings as a measure of success.

There is an ever-growing disquiet caused by that mentality that is only likely to snowball.

Let's hope the pension can't be altered too much - it's all we have left.:ugh::mad:

[Albert Another]

U.G,

Well put. I couldn't agree more.

[Voxpop]

As promised, I asked where we were with getting sight of the Framework Document. It appears that a couple of issues are being ironed out with the Treasury and, until they are, the document cannot be finalised.

Keep an eye on our website (The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk)).

[Voxpop]

At the risk of boring you, I am afraid that your questions cannot be answered fully until the framework document is published.

The Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004 has a provision which protects accrued rights, we are told that the IP will be honoured in so much as the proportion earned at the change over date will be paid at the IP point, and we are told that those aged 45 and above on the change over date will see no difference. However, we need to see this, and the other proposals, in black and white.

[Albert Another]

All those over 45 years old I imaging were planning to stay to 55 anyway. It is those in their early forties that could have the most to lose. This is where the levy could be breeched and a generation of ‘potential lifers’ experience lost as they get out before any changes occur (if they have any serious financial life-planning impact).

[david parry]

Loved the Dit from today's Telegraph..... Interesting that the Govt told the Armed Forces that their pensions had been moved to CPI, on advice from the BofE, stating it was a more appropriate inflationary measure for retired persons. When asked what measure the BOfE use for their pensioners????? The answer RPI....You couldn't make it up:rolleyes:

[Al R]

The Bank of England Pension Fund is a private scheme, and therefore probably not the best for a like for like comparison. But I take your point! Having said that, as barometers go, it raised a few pension-geek smiles when it reduced its exposure to Gilts a few years ago and plumped for some inflation linked investments instead - the writing was on the wall! I'm an IFA and I'm in the Forces Pension Society because just as the BoE scheme members have people batting for them, Forpen is the closest 'we' have. Well worth the very modest annual fee and they make good coffee (look out for my spiffing ad in the next issue of Pennant too. :ok: ).

Finally, by way of info and not advice, for those higher earners - the Lifetime (pension) Allowance is reducing from £1.8 millions to £1.5 millions. Caution needs to be exercised when considering your options, but if you expect your total pension benefits to be worth more than £1.5 millions, you can apply for 'Fixed Protection' if it is in your specific best interests to do so. Fixed Protection means that your pension benefits are protected from any tax charge up to the value of £1.8 millions - this is not the same as not paying tax on pensionable income. But it could mean that you need to review things, especially if you're 2 or 3* and above and/or expecting a new job anytime soon..

The deadline for applying for Fixed Protection is now only weeks away - 5 April 2012.

[reynoldsno1]

I applied for my preserved gratuity and pension last year, which was acknowledged at the end of Sep 11. No details of amounts. At the same time I sent overseas payment details to Xafinity.

I have heard nothing since, and I have passed the qualification age now. I sent an email a few days ago to JPAC at the SPVA. No response yet. Is this a normal state of affairs?

[Mightycrewseven]

OK, I'm now completely stumped as to what direction to take now.

I have already passed my IP and am serving to 55yrs, which puts me in a position that I can leave (under Early Termination (pka PVR) with my AFPS 75 pension intact at any time - a very good place to be!

As a top level Flt Lt (Level 9) and having just missed out on promotion over the previous few years, without any carrots now is a good time to consider my options outwith the RAF. However, totally out of the blue and unexpected, I have been offerd PAS - very happy days! Only problem is, the 5yrs Return of Service that acceptance of PAS demands takes me beyond the 2015 Service Pension Change. Moreover, as a previous poster highlighted, I have just turned 40 and will therefore not be 'protected' from any pension changes that are likely to arise in 2015 (clever move by the government to get Seniors (45yo +) to not kick up any fuss!).

My issue is that without the Basic Framework details I feel that I cannot make an informed decision as to whether accept the offer. If I accept, I obviously achieve a better pension but I risk losing more by not having an option to leave if the changes are drastic :ugh:

What would my employment rights be if I accepted the offer but then tried to leave inside the 5yr RoS???

[Al R]

The problem is, the deal isn't finalised yet and is still being negotiated - a good reason to swell Forpen coffers maybe. Don't forget though, that (subject to confirmation), the Rights that you have accrued at the time and point the pension changes will be ring-fenced. So, although you will have to endure 2 years worth of the new deal if you elected to leave in 2017 (assuming the new deal starts in 2015), the remainder of your pension will treated iaw your current terms. Might that be palatable enough?

I don't know what your employment rights would be, sorry.

[Sandy Parts]

if you leave within 5-yrs of moving onto PAS, you will get a pension based on the Spec Aircrew Terms of Service (SATOS). This is covered in the relevant AP. The rates are harder to find - try a search for SATOS as pdf copies lurk on t'internet. This is how it works under AFPS75. If AFPS2015 comes along, I would expect existing AFPS75 arrangements to be honoured as I understand it is too difficult to change? (act of parliament or somesuch?). I was in your boat a while back and made my decision based on "what have you got to lose by going PAS?";)

[orca]

wrt issues such as a return of service does anyone know of an expert on employment law?

From my research an employer can change your conditions so long as they can prove that they had to (MoD out of money) and they did it fairly (which they are trying to do) and there was a consultancy period (which there is). This would appear to hold true if you were (for example) trying to claim constructive dismissal.

Where would one stand as far as a return of service is concerned? To my mind the PA spine isn't a return of service so much as a qualifying period. However a lot of qualifications and courses do carry returns of service which, if accepted and honoured, will from Apr 12 onwards result in you still serving when the changes take place. i.e. no matter how much you dislike the changes you can't legally leave...or can you?

The exam question is: How big a change in the pension would it take for it to be seen as unreasonable to enforce a return of service accepted before the details of the changes were released?

[CAC Runaway]

My understanding is that going onto PAS does as you say involve a 5 yr return of service to QUALIFY for the pension. You are able to leave within this timescale but you will revert to the old pay scale for your pension. I know of an RN Lt Cdr who has done this so you don't have anything to lose by taking the PAS.

[Could be the last?]

Vox,

The system has stated that those with 10 yrs or less at the point the new pension is introduced will not be affected. Would this 10yr bracket be valid if there was a delay in the introduction for any reason, or would they stick with 10yr from 1Apr 15?

Just asking:ok:

[Red Line Entry]

Vox,

My understanding is that the current intent is that there will be no change for those who are over 45 on 1 Apr 12. This is not the same as 10 years to serve from 2015.

The problem with all this is nothing is as yet firmed up, even to the point that the planned consultation seems to have been delayed due to the lack of firm proposals!

[Voxpop]

What I have seen in black and white is that 'if you are 45 years old or over on 1 April 2012, you will be protected'. What we really need is the Framework Document - then those understandably worried souls who have contributed to this thread would know whether they really have anything to worry about. Here are some examples:

The person who is going to PAS - once you see in black and white what career averaging means to you, you may well not be worried.

The person who leaves in late 2015 - once we have the Framework Document, it may be clear that the introduction will slip to 2016 (Hutton did say that the Armed Forces might take a little longer)

The Forces Pension Society is keeping close to MOD sources on this as we have a huge interest (and input) to their work. Keep an eye on our website www.forpen.co.uk (http://www.forpen.co.uk) .

[Reverend 71]

Details on the agreement between HMT and the MoD on accrued rights for those on AFPS 75 and 05 have now been published on the Defence Intranet under DIN 2012DIN01-063: 'Pension rights accrued in Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 and Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005'. Enjoy!

[Arty Fufkin]

Any chance of cutting and pasting the contents for those of us not able to get to a DII machine? (Stuck down route)

[VinRouge]

Anyone? Down route also. Will there be preserved rights for gratuity and the IPP or am I waiting till 60 to get the first pennies of my pension?

Anyone care to comment on orca's original statement, IE what happens if an individual refuses to accept but due to financial circumstances cannot PVR due to drop in flying pay? Will there be any quick way out if you refuse the new terms?

[Top Bunk Tester]

Just had a look and although the DIN is UNCLASSIFIED there is a non communication outside of MoD rider on it. Sorry, you'll just have to wait or get to a DII system.

[Arty Fufkin]

Any chance of a few edited highlights then?

[VinRouge]

Ok, is it good news or bad news? :hmm:

[Stuff]

For those with no DII you can get it on AirSpace

https://airspace.raf.mod.uk/information/documents.cfm?documentID=AE4CC415-5056-A318-A89FFDF2FDC273AD&search=&categoryID=0&month=&year=&orderby=&searchFilter=false&page=1

[Melchett01]

VinRouge,

It's good news - well as good as it gets. It looks like a hybrid scheme - whatever you have accumulated up to the point we chop across to the new pension scheme you get to keep AND more importantly you get to draw as you would have done on the old scheme. Any service accrued under the new scheme will be paid out separately.

e.g. I will have done 16 years pensionable service by 2014. If I stay on until my 44 point in 2020 and then leave, I will get my AFPS 75 pension paid as normal for the 17 years service up to 2015 (or whenever it chops across) which will be uprated at 55. I then get a second chunk of pension for the remaining 5 or so years in uniform, but the rules for when that is paid out appear to be being worked out.

Could have been worse I guess. It may still be worse come the Budget if George decides to tax pension lump sums which will hammer your gratuity!

[Arty Fufkin]

I'm sort of hoping that changes to lump sum taxation will be limited to just lowering the threshold from £400k+ that it is now to something that still won't penalise humble folk like us. Wouldn't put it past the buggers though.

A very "me specific" question:

What do you reckon will happen to the PA pension of someone who hasn't done 5 years on the scheme when the changes occur. I suppose they could say that I didn't do 5 years on the scheme and therefore revert to an unenhanced pension.

Not much point in staying in if that's the case ( unless I want to serve until 60!!)

It strikes me that if you won't get paid anything on pension 2015 until your 60th birthday, the retention aspect of the new AFPS will be zero.

[Kreuger flap]

You will get your pension at 55 if that is when you go under the new scheme.

[VinRouge]

Overall, one or two items slightly better than expected. Would go as far as saying "pleasantly surprised". A very well done for all those in the loop and consulting with Gideon as to what is getting forced upon us.

[Just This Once...]

The jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

Any document that tells me that my pension that I signed for just a few years ago under the 'offer to transfer' is going to cease soon, yet can only offer that 'the rules of the new scheme, including when pensions will be paid, are under development' is pretty shocking.

For those who transferred to AFPS05 (not me thankfully) it looks like a complete and utter shoeing.:eek:

[Just This Once...]

Those who made a move to AFPS05 on the basis that would be serving to 55 are in for a rude awakening. Their offers to transfer would have shown them that the pension they would receive at the 55 point would, on either scheme, be about the same. However, the AFPS05 scheme added a few sweeteners, such as 4 time D-I-S, so looked like the best move. However, the new scheme stops them from making their 55 point on AFPS05 so all the disadvantages of the EDP now kick in.

Examples for 2 identical wg cdrs who were both on AFPRS75 till the O-T-T (I've used the figures in the DIN):

27 years of pensionable service at the point of transition to the Future AFPS. He leaves the Armed Forces after 34 years of pensionable service at the age of 55.

Bloke who stayed on AFPS75:

He will be entitled to receive, as his accrued AFPS 75 rights, a taxable Full Career Pension of around £32,000 per annum. He will also be entitled to a tax free lump sum of around £96,000.

Bloke who moved to AFPS05:

He will be entitled to receive, as his accrued AFPS 05 rights, a taxable Pension of around £28,500 per annum. He will also be entitled to a tax free lump sum of around £85,500.

In both cases they will be entitled to pension benefits for the 7 years of pensionable service under the Future AFPS in accordance with the rules of that scheme. The rules of the new scheme, including when pensions will be paid, are under development.

So for changing to a pension scheme that evaporated 9 years later the AFPS05 bloke takes a spanking. If he stay on the old scheme he would have been ok; if the new scheme had seen him to retirement he would have been ok. But moving from 75 to 05 then forced to AFPS15 is a major kicking.

Wonder if anyone will challenge their Offer To Transfer paperwork...

[Charlie Time]

So glad I stayed on AFPS75.

[Dancing Bear]

Likewise glad I stuck with AFPS 75, on 3 grounds really;

1. They never offer you a better deal really (yes I know, cynical!)
2. If you don't make Cdr in the RN it is retirment at 53, therefore all benefits of AFPS 05 go out of the window as you have NOT SERVED until 55!!
3. If you bang out at anytime before 55 (as I subsequently did!) you are at least 10% better off under AFPS 75, albeit you were, conversley, roughly 10% better off under AFPS 05 if you managed to serve to 55 and live to 70!!

Roll on my 75th Birthday when I reckon I will have drawn as much pension as pay, well worth celebrating, even if it is in the distance of time!!:ok:

Of interest I wonder if anyone will sue for constructive dismissal and/or unfair renumeration if they are not permitted to serve until 55 under AFPS 05, will be an interesting ruling........

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Did those two Wg Cdrs do something naughty at some stage :confused:

[Melchett01]

Of interest I wonder if anyone will sue for constructive dismissal and/or unfair renumeration if they are not permitted to serve until 55 under AFPS 05, will be an interesting ruling........

I'm just wondering if they will eventually raise the retirement age from 55 - 60. I know the military is a young man's game, but with the move to retiring later and the constant encouragement to work until you drop, sorry, for as long as you would like to and feel you have a contribution to make to society, then pushing retirement back to 60 would seem to fit in with the Government's broader intentions.

Ironically, it might also keep a few extra people in, thus getting the benefit of the wisdom, experience and sheer native cunning won over years of dodging the enemy and the desk officer. After all, in the current climate retiring at 55 will leave most people wondering what to do for the next 5-10 years. Unless you have specialist skills or have reached a high enough rank to be attractive to industry for your contacts in the system, most of us will be sitting there wondering what's next while we wait for the official state retirement. Another 5 years of guaranteed income would probably be seen as an attractive option for some no doubt.

[Stuff]

Of interest I wonder if anyone will sue for constructive dismissal and/or unfair renumeration if they are not permitted to serve until 55 under AFPS 05, will be an interesting ruling........

I wondered the same thing but when I googled employment law I found that:

You can’t make a complaint of unfair dismissal if you are a:

member of the armed forces


What to do if you are unfairly dismissed : Directgov - Employment (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_175828)

[Quazzi]

will there still be the option to commute part of the pension into a larger tax free lump sum post apr 2015?

[CAC Runaway]

Not me fella. I will be wondering on my PAS Pension, do I actually have to get up this morning? Not really, you see if I earn a couple of hundred more per year I will be in the 40% tax bracket again. Who needs that?

Thanks for that useful addition to the discussion you arrogant to$$er. I can see from your other posts on this site that you provide nothing but ridicule and sarcasm to this forum. Bet you were the crew room knob on your station.

[Kreuger flap]

Your just jealous.:ok: Anyway its my thread so I'll write what I like.:)

[VinRouge]

Kruger, dont worry, your generation will be dribbling in your pea soup in care homes when mine will be able to return the favour for all the intergenerational theft thats gone on over the last 30 years!

Think the younger generation are getting screwed over a barrel right now? Just see what we can think up between now and then!

[downsizer]

Is there any ground for legal challenge in the fact that transfer to AFPS15 is mandatory for those on AFPS75 (and 05)??

[bootscooter]

....or what about those that transfered to 05 on the basis of the pension calculator and will not receive the figures that made them do so? Will they be able to revert to '75?

[Reverend 71]

From what I recall from a pensions brief to PSF staffs recently, the resettlement commutation is an accrued right and therefore should be available to individuals after the new scheme is introduced for the AFPS 75 element of their pension. Service to age 60 is being looked at by the New Employment Model Team and is more a Terms and Conditions of Service issue than a pension one, though they are clearly very closely linked. As for PAS, I would expect that you would still have to complete your 5 yrs ROS. Once completed the supplements you earned up to the introduction of the new scheme would be paid as part of your AFPS 75 pension with the remainder paid as part of your career average earnings pension.

[Melchett01]

Not me fella. I will be wondering on my PAS Pension, do I actually have to get up this morning?

I guess you just lacked the specialist skills or didn't get promoted - off to Tesco to stack shelves for you then :}

[Ken Scott]

I guess you just lacked the specialist skills or didn't get promoted

Actually I thought that was the point of PAS - the RAF's need to retain your specialist flying skills. The Air Force is pretty full of SOs doing really important administrative jobs behind comfy desks so it needs some experienced aircrew to actually operate its aircraft with some continuity avoiding the whirligig of 2 yearly postings.

[Kreuger flap]

Being a blunty he wont know what PAS is Ken. Nor will he ever experience its advantages of not having to organise endless Summer Balls to get promoted to Sqn Ldr in order to be given all the crappy jobs that the Wg Cmdr doesn't want to do, whilst still leaving with a Wg Cdrs Pension.

As for working in Tesco, Aldi actually pay better hourly rates but why would I want to pay 40% tax?

[Party Animal]

Is there any ground for legal challenge in the fact that transfer to AFPS15 is mandatory for those on AFPS75 (and 05)??


I currently have no access to the DIN or any other official way of seeing the paperwork, hence this quick question. If you have less than 10 years to your 55 point from 1 Apr 15, then do you just stay on your current pension scheme with no changes? Or if it is mandatory for everyone serving to transfer to AFPS15? If so, how will it work out that those within 10 years should see no changes to planned and expected pension deals?

That of course 'assumes' there is even any mention of plans for those with less than 10 years to go...

[Kreuger flap]

This is directly from the DIN.

Additionally, all members of Public Service Pension Schemes within 10 years of their Normal Pension Age on 1 Apr 12 will see no change to the amount of pension they will receive or the time at which it can be drawn. This means that:
• Members of AFPS 75 and AFPS 05 who are aged 45 or over on 1 Apr 12 will be able to remain on their current pension schemes and their benefits will be unaffected; and

ll Service personnel who are aged under 45 on 1 Apr 12 will be automatically enrolled into new AFPS when the new scheme starts. Thereafter, any further pension rights they earn will be in the new scheme.

Hope that helps.

[Chinny Crewman]

will there still be the option to commute part of the pension into a larger tax free lump sum post apr 2015?

Yes having read through the DIN my understanding is that anything accrued before 2015 is the same after so if you have served 19 yrs of a 22 yr engagement in 2015 and then serve 3 more years in 2017 you will get 19/22 of your pension including the ability to commute with the last 3 years under the new scheme payable at some time to be decided.

Whilst I have no intention of spending my entire Friday evening/weekend looking at the DIN I do have access to it and have read it so if anyone who can't get sight of it and has any basic questions I will try and oblige.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I guess you just lacked the specialist skills or didn't get promoted - off to Tesco to stack shelves for you then :}

Thick as mince here and a Baldrick all my days but should get just over 33k a year as a pension and 3 times that as a hand out.......stacking shelves my arris I will be on a permanent holiday :ok:

[Melchett01]

SFFP - I do like a man with a plan ;)

Kreuger - was that a bite or merely a nibble?

[Ken Scott]

should get just over 33k a year as a pension and 3 times that as a hand out

SFFP: I hope for your sake (and all of ours) that that 'nice' Mr Osbourne doesn't decide to tax gratuities in his forthcoming budget....

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

SFFP: I hope for your sake (and all of ours) that that 'nice' Mr Osbourne doesn't decide to tax gratuities in his forthcoming budget....

Ken,

A Irish friend of mine sums up life for me when he says "it is what it is" so if George does then he does :ok:

[Quazzi]

chinny crewman, cheers for that. whilst i know you should'nt base financial planning on payments that havent been made yet and could be changed, i was rather hoping to increase the value of the pension/gratuity by slashing a bulk off the mortgage! fingers crossed that the gratuity remains a tax free payment!

[LFFC]

Quazzi,

I don't think the government will single out the military by taxing gratuities as such, but it's possible that they may start taxing all pension lump sum payments. If they did that for the whole country, then they could easily justify taxing military gratuities. However, that would be a very bold move and another great disincentive to making pension payments; so I don't think it's going to happen.

What's far more likely is another reduction in pension contributions - down to possibly £30,000 a year - so that rich contributors can benefit far less. That would catch many more people out, be accepted by the general population and placate the Lib Dems! However, it might also hit people on final salary pension schemes if they get promoted! Which of course makes it more important to push through pension reform, which is exactly the government's aim. So if you think you're safe because you're within your last 10 years - watch out; do your sums before seeking promotion!

[A2QFI]

Time was (ISTR) that a gratuity of 3 x one's pension was intended to pay cash for one's first house! How long ago must that have been?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Time was (ISTR) that a gratuity of 3 x one's pension was intended to pay cash for one's first house! How long ago must that have been?

There are still one or two folk I know of who will reach 55 and still be in quarters, never owned their own home and the gratuity is no way going to buy them a house :confused:

[Melchett01]

There are still one or two folk I know of who will reach 55 and still be in quarters, never owned their own home and the gratuity is no way going to buy them a house

That has always been the case, including amongst some people who you would have thought might have known better. I remember holding at 11/18Gp and hearing of an Air Commodore in that exact position. It was only with months to go before he left that the reality of his situation hit home and what should have been a relatively comfortable retirement was suddenly going to rather tighter than he and his family had imagined. But up until that point, they had spent all their time living in cheap quarters, enjoying the holidays and a certain quality of life that even a 1* pension wasn't going to be able to make up for.

No idea what happened to him, and whilst we all had a degree of sympathy, the over riding feeling was of a self-inflicted injury. I suspect that given society's drift towards a sense of self-entitelment and immediate gratification without consideration for the consequences, there are probably more than a few who are in the same boat.

[A2QFI]

This is well within budget @ £7000!!!!

Is this Britain's cheapest house? Terraced home goes up for auction for just £7,000 | Mail Online (http://tinyurl.com/3arwsxb)

[Willard Whyte]

Just right for a retired 1*

http://media.rightmove.co.uk/14k/13382/35707025/13382_112210A_12210_IMG_05_0000_max_620x414.JPG

£34K

If he could stretch to £65K there's this

http://media.rightmove.co.uk/10k/9058/36661505/9058_LIN120018_IMG_00_0000_max_620x414.JPG

Classy area, might get the flag thrown in for free.

[Quazzi]

LFFC,

You could well be right, and a lot of good lads and lasses are very carefully weighing up whether to accept PA / promotion. As for me I took it, I may well be (in) the minority but I still love being in the RAF. I just hope that HMG don't take the p**s out of the boys and girls still proudly serving, as that really would be a kick in the slats.

[LFFC]

Quazzi,

Here are a couple of important things that you should remember:

If you've recently been promoted, you won't be credited with the resulting pension increase for another year or two. So, any further immediate reduction in the pension tax-free allowance - like the one announced just over a year ago (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11539238) - might lead to you being presented with an unexpected tax bill in the not too distant future! But never fear - rather than tap you for the money now, they will take it out of your gratuity when you leave.

Also watch out for any further increase in the actuarial factor used to work out the increase in value of your "pension pot" when your defined pension increases. It was increased from 10 to 16 just over a year ago, but the treasury might argue that, as annuity rates have continued to fall over the last year, it should be increased again - and trust me, that would be a bad thing!

[Kreuger flap]

Receiving a tax bill for a pension scheme that you have no control over would be a really good morale booster. I think everybody in the Armed Forces should get such a bill.

[MaroonMan4]

I am certainly no pension expert so please feel free to ignore my personal uneducated thoughts below, and I am very much into the twilight of my career, but I am coming to terms to what is rumoured to be about a 10%reduction in real terms in my annual pension, but taxing my Gratuity/EDP would be my fear if I was outside the 10 year protection zone.

Those that are between the 38 - 45 (on 1 Apr 12) are the ones that will be affected the most, having made a choice to opt for a second career with Her Majesty rather than leaving for a potential civilian career at what some term as the optimum time, they may have considered pension rights in this decision process.

The very clever HMT that has historically taxed our graturities at 0% means that as per any other tax they can raise or lower accordingly without any requirement to consult or seek legal assurance. Therefore there is rumour that at the end of the consultation period that although accrued rights has ben retained, HMT will will simply raise the rate of tax on the gratuities of those outside the 10 year protection zone from 0% to what some believe may be in the region of 30-40% tax - (ouch :ouch:)

No act of parliament required, tax is simply in the gift of the Treasury.

Not only is that going to hurt those outside of the 10 year buffer that did elect to stay on in the belief that they were going to receive a decent pension, but also if 2015 is the cut off, then will there be a mass exodus for the door as the maths doesn't add up and it doesn't make financial sense to stay (acknowlegding that for some job satisfaction outweighs financial gain).

Or, has HMT/MOD been very very clever by suddenly announcing the 1 April 12 'lock down' date as no one will be able to leave in one month in order to avoid the tax changes. I cannot see why if the pension changes will not take effect until 2015/16, why 1 Apr 12 is being used as an arbitary date for policy decisions (especially when we have not had visibility/input into the consultation process yet)? 4 years for people to decide to stay or go (in order to gain from the old pension benefits if they so whish appears fair, and should allow AMP to allow the manning levers to manage the outflow. Raising the drawbridge in one month does not seem fair if that it is the plan?

Why not 1 Apr 2015?

I have a horrible, personal feeling that it is because everyone would try and leave before the new pesions kicked in and therefore 1 Apr 12 shuts the door nice and early.

But hopefully I am very wrong about this.

[The B Word]

What I find unreasonable is, that for those with more than 10 years to go that have to change to AFPS15 in 2015 - why can't we have a further 10 years on our current scheme like those that leave in 10 year's time or less? :confused:

Seems totally unreasonable and should be open to contest. Otherwise, I suggest it is "ageist" against those at the same rank, same pay level but different age.

The B Word :*

[MaroonMan4]

JTO,

My key point....

Irrespective of the 43 yr point, if all of us get told this Budget or as part of that AFPRB settlement that the HMRC will start taxing our gratuities/EDPs from 1 Apr 12 then none of us have the chance to plan and consider the pros and cons of an exit before 2015. The draw bridge goes up with no one being able to PVR and be out in one month.

But from an AMP perspective I can see why he would not want the optionI and ambiguity to remain as potentially with 1year to go to to the new pension terms (2014?) there could conceivably be a mass exodus and major skills shortage as the difference between 0% tax and 30-40% on EDPs makes it a no brainier for many - however much they may or may not enjoy their job and the RAF.

[Melchett01]

If they do decide to tax gratuities, they may well find that their tax take isn't quite as much as they anticipate if such a measure is extended to all gratuities rather than those earning say over 100K.

Many people commute their pensions precisely because it is tax efficient to do so. Get a bigger chunk of your pensions up front tax free and also lower your annual tax bill up to 55 by way of lower annual pension payments. But if you make commutation an unattractive option, rather than getting 40% of an 80K gratuity, people will just simply not commute and HMT will instead be looking at 40% of 40K (very rough figures).

Then if an individual has any fiscal nouse, they will be looking at ways to legitimately minimise their tax burden, either by putting whatever money into a tax free ISA or a private pension. If they go for the pension route, then the government will have to stump up 20% tax relief on your contributions, which on a 10K / yr pension contribution would amount to 2K tax relief, which if extrapolated over the years means that you would probably (eventually!) get back in tax relief what you had lost in your gratuity being taxed. If they go down the ISA route, then whilst there is no tax relief up front, neither is there any tax to pay downstream - yet more money safe from HMT's grubby little mits.

I admit that squirelling away your immediate pension for the future means you can't spend it now - and you would have to ensure that in doing so you could maintain your commitments and standard of living - but the point I am getting at is that HMT, whether they intended it or not, have started a game of cat and mouse. For every hairbrained scheme HMT comes up with, any individual with a degree of nouse about them will look for ways round it. I'm fairly sure that as part of George's 'Plan A' , a discussion was had that went along the lines of lets keep interest rates low to encourage domestic consumption. But as tax rates and inflation went up, all it did was to make it more attractive to pay down debt and over pay on the mortgage. If they do decide to tax gratuities, the laws of unitended consequences will simply kick in once more. Unfortunately for Dave and George, many people are now starting to wake up to the fact of what the Government is doing and are actively taking steps within the regulations to preserve their own financial interests.

[Paul Chocks]

Melchett,

I'm not sure that commuting is tax efficient, at IPP at least. I seem to remember when I left a few years back and was doing the calculation, that commuting gives you approximately the same as if you were taxed at 40% on a non-commuted pension. Therefore, if you were expecting to go into a low paid job, or prolonged retraining (and could be sure that you would live long enough to reap the rewards of your pension) then commuting may make the sense you imagine.

Benefit of commutation is better a bird in the hand than two in the bush!

[Lima Juliet]

Back at Post #105...

I also worked out that I was significantly better off doing the resettlement commute. I took £4800 off my pension to raise £39k tax free and I will be paying that for just shy of 10 years (call it £48k). However, as a top rate 40% taxpayer I would be giving the Govt £19200 in tax for that £48k over the same period if I didn't commute; which would mean in real terms I pay £28800 to raise £39k - so I'm £10200 better off over the next 9.6years (call it £1k a year for cash!).

Still holds true to me. Commutation is the way ahead if you are a high rate taxpayer!

LJ

[High_Expect]

Here's a question for you all.... With our AFPS75 pensions being preserved and with such a large change in terms of service do we all get the option to PVR on 1st April 15 and draw out 'preserved' pension and tax free lump sum immediately? 😜

[VinRouge]

This is what I am wondering. It would make an interesting test case, refuse to accept the pensions changes post 2015. Now with the current state of aircrew retention allowance, with you losing 12 months worth on PVR, I dont think they could keep you in, especially if you couldnt afford the 12 month 20% in pay.

All these pensions changes are targetted against civil servants with very few transferrable skills to the outside world. Either they have to throw the dog a bone with some pretty huge targetted FRI's or they are going to have to gap capability.

I dont intend to stay if they tax our gratuity and I will use the change in terms and conditions as the means to get out.

[High_Expect]

VinRouge shall I start a group? If we all throw £1000 at it and get 50 people to sign up that should get a good enough law firm. I sense a panicked meeting of the RAF 'not good enough to get in anywhere else' lawyers around lunchtime tomorrow.

[sidewayspeak]

VinRouge shall I start a group? If we all throw £1000 at it and get 50 people to sign up that should get a good enough law firm. I sense a panicked meeting of the RAF 'not good enough to get in anywhere else' lawyers around lunchtime tomorrow.

Wouldn't need that much if we could get enough people. The internet has real power...Imagine, if they do try to screw us over, we get just 1/3 of the entire 180,000 Armed Forces personnel to join a group - about 60,000. £10 each .... £600, 000. That would buy a good legal team.

We need a mutiny.

[Could be the last?]

High Expect,

As redundancy wasn't offered/ available on Tranche 2, I sat with the Pension Claculator for about an hour working the various options, taking into account the pension changes on 1 Apr 15 for the exit point. My understanding is that you would have to PVR, 31 Mar 14 to be out by 1 Apr 15? Which is Plan B, unless they bring in tax on my gratuity!

I think these changes, and the subsequent affect they will have will push more into leaving!

[orca]

Dull question, but how were you able to calculate anything for post-Apr 2015, or have I misunderstood?

[whowhenwhy]

So being completely parochial, if I exercise my 16 point which is in Apr 14, I avoid the shenanigins over the Apr 15 pension changes but I may yet have my gratuity taxed by the robbing politicians? :confused:

What he givveth with one hand, he taketh with another :ugh:

[Voxpop]

Before going down this route, you need to appreciate that you do not have many of the employment rights enjoyed by others (see our leaflet on the unique nature of military service at The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk) ) and you could end up paying a legal time a lot of money to research and tell you that you haven't got a case. So far I have seen suggestions that you could claim unfair/constructive dismissal and ageism. Service personnel are specifically exempt from the Age Directive and cannot claim unfair or constructive dismissal because of the way their terms and conditions are composed.

You will probably not want to take my word for it. The Forces Pension Society knows of a retired RN Judge Advocate who now practices as a freelance Barrister and specialises in Armed Forces terms and conditions of service ( Coffin Mew - Page not found (http://www.coffinmew.co.uk/people-armedforces) ) - might be worth running your case past him before embarking on huge expense. (There might be other such specialists available but we do not have their details.) You might also like to look at the CAFF UK website ( Combined Armed Forces Federation UK (CAFFUK) Official Web Site (http://www.caffuk.co.uk) ) as they have experience of taking action against MOD on pensions issues.

The Forces Pension Society is monitoring the MOD's activities on the new pension scheme very closely. We are part of the consultative body for Armed Forces pensions and will do all in our power to get you the best possible deal within the Treasury's constraints. Keep an eye on our website ( The Forces Pension Society (http://www.forpen.co.uk) ) for further information.

[High_Expect]

Thanks Voxpop. Whilst the legal route is not always the solution. I know I speak for more than just myself - I had a plan for the financial stability of both myself and my family. Admittedly this was not my plan when I signed up but it is now by far and away the most important factor. That plan has just been blown out of the water. I now may wish to look elsewhere to continue my life plan. The government have been kind enough to agree to preserving what I've earned up to 2015. But I do not wish to serve the remaining years under the new term they have offered. Leaving several years earlier, taking my considerable transferable skills elsewhere, will be considerably more financially lucrative than the scheme that is being forced upon me without my approval. What I'm saying is thank you very much I've enjoyed my time but you have now broken your end of the bargain so I wish to exercise my human right to bid you a good day. (this may or may not be my actual view) but I do not see why I have seemingly less rights than a prisoner.

[ALM In Waiting]

Having read the various DINs today, It seems I will be able to keep my IP point of 22 years service. However, the picture becomes hazy were those 22 years service are made up by some AFPS 75 service and some of FAFPS post 2015.

From what I can deduce from the example in the DIN I could leave at 43 at my 22 year point, but would only receive a pension based on my fourteen years AFPS 75 service to 2015.

It seems that whether the FAFPS years would add to my IP or be deferred until my normal retirement age is still being decided by the MoD.

Can anyone shed anymore light on this?

[Uncle Ginsters]

ALMiW,

I fear there is no more light to shed...as the DIN says, the terms of FAFPS are still under discussion.

Many folk (me included) are waiting on the detail of FAFPS in order to see if it makes for a suitable through-life plan. I'm sitting on a PA offer the would begin 11 months prior to 2015 watershed so the bulk of my PA service would be under a scheme that is, as yet, TBD. I'd be very surprised is many of those currently being offered PA take it without these details...we'll just have to wait and see.

[RandomBlah]

UG,

To my mind, even if you ultimately ended up leaving, isn't it in your interest to take the PA offer now? For the following reasons:

1. If you were to PVR on day 1 of the new pension you would not lose your flying pay.

2. You would not suffer a reduced pension (PVR rate) on your pre 2015 pension as you did not PVR from it!

Or have I got this wrong?

Regards

RB

[High_Expect]

Where did this you wont lose flying pay on PVR post new pension scheme come from? Have I missed something?

[Chinny Crewman]

If he accepts PA he won't lose his Flying Pay on PVR.

[High_Expect]

Got you. Sorry, being slow.

[Bob Viking]

Having read the DIN it wasn't clear to me if the option to commute your pension in order to get an increased lump sum would still be available. Anyone brighter than me able to shed any light?
BV :O

[Melchett01]

Don't see why not - as I read it, basically whatever you have accrued and the rights that go with it remain the same until the switch to the new scheme. This means that you can draw your IP from 16/38 as normal, and thus by inference should be able to commutate your gratuity as normal.

Whether or not HMT puts a spanner in the works to stop it or make it an unattractive proposition through changes to the tax regime is another matter entirely.

[Uncle Ginsters]

. If you were to PVR on day 1 of the new pension you would not lose your flying pay.

2. You would not suffer a reduced pension (PVR rate) on your pre 2015 pension as you did not PVR from it!


Agreed on both points - no flying pay to lose on PAS anyhow.

My point is that by taking it, i'm still agreeing to a potential future set of terms that are unknown.

thus by inference should be able to commutate your gratuity as norma

With rumours of taxable gratuity in FAFPS, that could lead to commuting the pension which could then, potentially, be taxed and thus sizeably reduced.

The whole point is that there are just a few too many unknowns and potential scenarios without answer as yet...why not just wait until there are? The manning issues certainly aren't going away.

[Voxpop]

We are waiting for confirmation on commutation but, as it is outside the pension scheme and it is a really a loan system, there is a good argument for it to be left alone. Keep an eye on our website - Forces Pension Society - Fighting for the forces and their families (http://www.forpen.co.uk)

[Could be the last?]

Obviously, for those that don't make the grade to stay on AFPS 75, the ideal would be to take a forecast as of 31 Mar 15 as a base line? I know it early days yet, However, when are they likely to update the FPS Calculator to allow some kind of look/insight into what the AFPS15 is going to payout?

[high spirits]

I know a lot of people using the calculator now to take a reading of what they will get if they bang out in 15. Also what they would have got had AFPS 75 or 05 survived till retirement. That way when the new scheme comes out, they can see if they are being fleeced, by how much, and make an informed decision about financial planning for the future.
I hate to play devils advocate especially as I may well get fleeced too, but with the calculator(even given it is not 100% accurate), there is no excuse to not know what you will get on retirement from the mob, and therefore plan for it. Roll on the new deal, at least I will know where I stand and make the decision in the immortal style of a well known song by The Clash.

[Corporal Clott]

Rock the Casbah?

London Calling?

:confused:

[Melchett01]

I was thinking more White Riot, English Civil War, Bankrobber or Know Your Rights.

Of course if you were being deeply unoriginal, you might think Should I Stay or Should I go:ok:

[high spirits]

'I fought the law.....'

Although 'bankrobber' is a good shout.

Agreed'should I stay or should I go' would be deeply unoriginal:E

[Red Line Entry]

Or how about the Animals' hit: 'We gotta get out of this place'

[LFFC]

Here's even more to worry about:

Lib Dems' pension tax: '5p on rate of income tax' for senior public sector staff (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9114127/Lib-Dems-pension-tax-5p-on-rate-of-income-tax-for-senior-public-sector-staff.html).

The headline is a little misleading, but what it boils down to is:

A senior teacher [or military personnel] earning £80,000 a year could have to pay almost £4,000 a year in extra tax, accountants estimate.

The reasoning goes like this:

Many teachers, for example, see their eventual pension increase by one eightieth of salary each year. So a teacher earning £80,000 would get a £1,000 rise in annual pension income as he completes each extra year in the job. The tax rules stipulate that the effective value of this extra income is 16 times the amount, so a £1,000 a year rise in pension is equal to a £16,000 pension contribution.

This £16,000 theoretical contribution would be taxed at 20pc if higher-rate relief were abolished, resulting in a tax bill of £3,200 a year. But members of this pension scheme are also entitled to a lump sum, which gives rise to another tax liability.

The lump sum increases at the rate of three eightieths of salary each year, or £3,000 for a worker on £80,000. This would attract tax at 20pc or £600, leading to a total bill of £3,800 – the equivalent of 4.75p on the rate of income tax. The calculation assumes that salaries rise in line with inflation.

Ouch!! :*

It looks like a direct hit at the military to me; as Danny Alexander seems convinced that the military has a non-contributary pension scheme, I guess he thinks that higher rate tax payers in the military would not be hit by the 20% tax-relief restriction to pension contributions. Therefore he's wanting to claw back money another way. Maybe staying on AFPS75 isn't such a good thing after all.

:ugh:

[Melchett01]

Apologies for the very slow question - but from this article am I to infer that this would result in an extra tax bill? The article is all about claiming tax relief on pension contributions, which we don't make anyway. So surely from the AFPS perspective this is a hypothetical argument?

Additionally, as you have to physically claim back the higher rate tax relief through the tax return system, surely removing it wouldn't necessarily mean that you had to pay out the extra tax, just that you were no longer able to claim back the tax which would be worth the equivalent of 5p on the rate of income tax?

I have to say that overall, it's a poorly written article, designed to capture public sentiment more than it does accurately reflect the state of affairs. Tax legislation is hugely complex and all they are doing here is over simplifying it for headline purposes. That said, I still think that Danny Alexander is an incredibly dangerous individual if you happen to have any desire to succeed at all in life. I wait with baited breath to see what he tries to tax next.

[LFFC]

...am I to infer that this would result in an extra tax bill?

Yes, that's how I read it. However, lots of agencies are urging caution and there seems to be something of a battle going on within the treasury as to which "bright ideas" get implimented. This article appears to be lobbying against Alexander. Mind you, the alternative looks equally as bad, but maybe only if you get promoted:

The Government has other options if it wants to cut the amount of money lost to the public purse through tax relief on pensions. It is thought that, instead of abolishing 40pc relief, the Chancellor may restrict how much savers can put in a pension each year.

Currently people can save up to £50,000 tax-free into a pension, but it is understood the Government is considering reducing this annual allowance to £40,000 or £30,000 instead. This could also result in a tax bill for highly paid workers in the public sector.

[Donna K Babbs]

Another PA anomaly; two aircrew personnel are selected for PA just before the new pension comes in. One is on AFPS75, but the other is on AFPS05. Will the first still be required to serve for 5 years from acceptance of PA before being pensionable on a PA scale?

As this is not an accrued right (more a penalty), and all post-pension change PA awards will not have the 5 year tie-in, I cannot see how the AFPS75 rules can be enforced.

[Reverend 71]

The PAS pension supplements under AFPS 75 would be the accrued rights in this case, therefore, the individual on that scheme would probably have to complete the 5 yrs RoS to access the supplements earned before the introduction of the FAFPS.

With FAFPS being a career average scheme, those being offered PAS need to weigh up the potential benefits of having all their pension rights up to the new scheme's introduction protected and then starting on a career average scheme at a relatively high starting salary with future incremental progression available. Obviously its relative and future value will depend on what accrual and revaluation rate is agreed with HMT, but it may not be such a bad place to be when the new scheme is introduced.

[Uncle Ginsters]

...then starting on a career average scheme at a relatively high starting salary with future incremental progression available

Yes, but that's all hypothetical at the moment.

We don't know the time-frame that the career average will be bound by - from 2015 for actual career including pre-2015 service.

We don't know that it would include an incremental progression from 2015 like AFPS75, or more akin to the AFPS05 scheme and it's rights.

We don't know what the PAS rights on PVR would be as the JSP can't reflect an AFPS that hasn't been issued yet.

Too many unknowns. I'd wish those on here would stop hypothesising on an system that has yet to be finalised and announced...unless, of course, you know something that we don't?

The online calculator is great for what we know, but i fear few will make a decision based on that many unknowns, unless the FAPFS is issued interfrastically.

[Reverend 71]

From the briefings I've attended, the new scheme will not be retrospective as all your previous earnings would be reflected in the pension benefits you would have been earned under AFPS 75 or 05 which will be protected on the introduction of the new scheme. FAFPS will then be based on your pensionable earnings each year from the date of introduction. If you are eligible for incremental progression, such as on the PAS, as the increment would form part of your pensionable earnings your pension would therefore increase accordingly.

[SAMXXV]

If I were still serving, I would take all these rumours with a pinch of salt... The current government have to be VERY careful to not breach EU laws (& lets face it, all EU MEP's vote yearly to enhance their own MULTI hundred pound EURO pensions. Even if a UK MEP has only served for 3 years the unelected bastwerds can take a pension for life of more than an RAF Air Commodore. Hilarious!!

I left the RAF in 1997 as a top of the grade (9 years?) Flt Lt on £27,000. I was immediately employed by the F&CO as the Head of IT for ECCM in Bosnia. My basic salary was £56,000, with a "war zone" allowance & a (as F&CO like to call it) a "per diem" allowance of 30 Dm/day. It equated to approx £86,000 a year in 97/98.

Let me tell you that in 1997 the F&CO used to charter A/C from Heathrow to Geneva with "new recruits" travelling Business Class. Then the next flight was a Swissair flight from Geneva to Sarajevo (Business Class again....). This was when the UK took over the Presidency of the EU.

On arrival I was put up for two nights in a pretty poor B&B. Then suddenly, all the new arrivals were taken out by the existing "Head of Mission - Peter Streams) & his top level staff to a ****ty Mexican restaurant in downtown Sarejevo. All the new "Chiefs" (as we were known) were transferred from our awful B&B rooms to Peter Streams magnificent villa (taken from a Serb Commander by SF) just outside Sarejevo, next to the defunct Volkswagen factory.

After 4 days we had to find our own accomodation in Sarajevo as Mr F&CO decided he wanted his mansion back. 4 months later we were all told that we had to attend a "reception" at his mansion as he had brought his daughter & parents out to Sarejevo (at the taxpayer's cost) for a week. I refused to attend no problem as they relied on me for IT services across Eastern Europe.

What was criminal was that at that reception in Jan/Feb 1998 the F&CO sent a small team out to decide if Bosnia was still a "War Zone" - which it wasn't - to see if he (b*gger his staff) for his extraorninary daily allowances.

So to all you honest people out there, I can assure you that your current "elected" politicians will continue to shaft you whilst it is in their financial personal interests to do so.


Since retiring in 1997 I, personally have been shafted by successive Labour/Tory governments. Thankfully (but sadly) next week I move abroad (permanently) to protect my way of life.

Take care...:sad:

[Al R]

I have spent the morning catching up with the DIN (thanks). Its what we expected, as good as it could be under the circumstances and as it explains, the details of FAFPS are still evolving. I think you have to look at the macro perspective and not get fixated on any one specific piece of minutae - everyone knows that an individual's needs are not of as paramount importance as they were before and you no longer have to be considered seditious, unprofessional or in the minority to believe that. I am sure that the MoD wants modern and outward thinking from a workforce that embraces (more) personal responsibility anyway.

The New Employment Model is going as important as the fine detail of FAFPS; such as death in service benefits, ill health/survivor pensions and non financial benefits, as well as anticipating civvy career opportunities. Osborne's intentions in respect of pension commencement lump sums, annual and lifetime allowances, tax relief on all/any pension contributions are also going to be as vital an issue as FAFPS and any (PVR etc) issues that crop up as a consequence of that. From continuing clarification of the generic big picture, the detail for individuals will start to flow naturally.