Tories to look at pensions.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doctor Cruces,
You obviously drew the short straw!
Whilst everyone would agree that the Civil Service is necessary, the ballooning of 'executive non jobs' with their entailing ridiculous pensions has caused the entire service to be mocked. Undoubtedly the 'shop floor' workers get a bum deal whilst the supposed progressive thinkers get some disproportionate amount of the Governments pie and subsequently stuff their own faces with it.
As Onevan has stated the good 'ol Tax man was quite happy to take his slice of 'specialist pay' tax, in many cases nicely into the 40% bracket thank you, but not so happy to pay out the pensionable difference. Now I am paying 40% tax on my taxed income pension as well.
New Labour have padded out the civil service with useless middle management who are draining the services resources at an alarming rate. Now the dear old Conservatives are looking around at who to screw next to pay for Gordos spending spree. If they succeed the it will be both the military and the real civil service workers, including the Fire Service, Nurses and Police who will pay the price.
W2P
You obviously drew the short straw!
Whilst everyone would agree that the Civil Service is necessary, the ballooning of 'executive non jobs' with their entailing ridiculous pensions has caused the entire service to be mocked. Undoubtedly the 'shop floor' workers get a bum deal whilst the supposed progressive thinkers get some disproportionate amount of the Governments pie and subsequently stuff their own faces with it.
As Onevan has stated the good 'ol Tax man was quite happy to take his slice of 'specialist pay' tax, in many cases nicely into the 40% bracket thank you, but not so happy to pay out the pensionable difference. Now I am paying 40% tax on my taxed income pension as well.
New Labour have padded out the civil service with useless middle management who are draining the services resources at an alarming rate. Now the dear old Conservatives are looking around at who to screw next to pay for Gordos spending spree. If they succeed the it will be both the military and the real civil service workers, including the Fire Service, Nurses and Police who will pay the price.
W2P
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onevan: your superannuation contributions are not taxed until you get them back as pension. There is, however, a good argument for them to be taken from taxed income as invariably when you do get the money back as pension, the tax rates have changed and you're suddenly paying more tax...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the AFPRB ( independant gov body) set the armed forces pay and pensions
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exscribbler,
The problem with the old pensions scheme, which I admit seems a little insignificant in todays current problems, is that your tax rate was calculated using your total pay, including specialist pay, which takes many aircrew well into the 40% tax bracket. National insurance contributions were also taken at this level.
When coming to 'pensionable pay' the military only takes the 'basic rank' pay minus the specialist pay. Hence you pay full tax and NI and receive a pension worth considerably less. Add to that, when 'retired' at 38 and moving into your next job you have to pay 40% tax on the non index linked pension payments from the Government? Double tax, you betcha!
As I say, for many people currently serving this seems a minor whinge, and it probably is, but it has been annoying retired Military aircrew for the last 30 years plus!
The problem with the old pensions scheme, which I admit seems a little insignificant in todays current problems, is that your tax rate was calculated using your total pay, including specialist pay, which takes many aircrew well into the 40% tax bracket. National insurance contributions were also taken at this level.
When coming to 'pensionable pay' the military only takes the 'basic rank' pay minus the specialist pay. Hence you pay full tax and NI and receive a pension worth considerably less. Add to that, when 'retired' at 38 and moving into your next job you have to pay 40% tax on the non index linked pension payments from the Government? Double tax, you betcha!
As I say, for many people currently serving this seems a minor whinge, and it probably is, but it has been annoying retired Military aircrew for the last 30 years plus!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wobble said: Add to that, when 'retired' at 38 and moving into your next job you have to pay 40% tax on the non index linked pension payments from the Government? Double tax, you betcha!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBI urges review of spiralling cost of pension schemes - Accountancy Age
"The CBI today called on the government to bring in experts to review the spiralling cost of Britain's public sector pension schemes, which it says is rising towards an 'eye-watering' £1tn. This follows demands last week from David Cameron, Conservative leader, for cuts in public sector pensions, saying a Tory government would make it a priority to bring public sector schemes in line with cheaper arrangements in the private sector."
"The CBI today called on the government to bring in experts to review the spiralling cost of Britain's public sector pension schemes, which it says is rising towards an 'eye-watering' £1tn. This follows demands last week from David Cameron, Conservative leader, for cuts in public sector pensions, saying a Tory government would make it a priority to bring public sector schemes in line with cheaper arrangements in the private sector."
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron, Conservative leader, for cuts in public sector pensions, saying a Tory government would make it a priority to bring public sector schemes in line with cheaper arrangements in the private sector.
Like what MPs pension arrangements are ???
Knowing that this subject was on the horizon they changed their system sometime ago to ensure that they would not be caught up in the argument.
Pigs in Troughs comes to mind.
Last edited by philrigger; 15th Dec 2008 at 13:43.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it ever comes to pass that our current pensions are pulled for something else or adjusted to such an extent that they no longer resemble what we thought we were getting then I would like to think that all 3 services would march on Downing Street and carry out a terribly polite coup.
Let's face it, the vast majority of us are "pulled" through the system from a certain point by the prospect of that pension carrot. If they remove that then all hell should break loose, it would be a scandal.
Let's face it, the vast majority of us are "pulled" through the system from a certain point by the prospect of that pension carrot. If they remove that then all hell should break loose, it would be a scandal.
Nostrinian - how about letters to respective MPs?
Granted, it may not change the price of fish overall, but it would let MPs know just what the feelings are at the coal face. I don't know what sort of majorities most MPs have with military bases in their constituencies, but I'm guessing places like Marham which have in excess of 5% of the RAF would make a dent in their majorities and send a message if it didn't actually get their opponents elected.
Given that the electoral map is already skewed in Labour's favour, the prospect of losing some of their traditional seats might just be enough to make them realise what they are setting in train. After all, they clearly don't give a damn about us, but the prospect of losing their own livelihoods might just make them think again.
Granted, it may not change the price of fish overall, but it would let MPs know just what the feelings are at the coal face. I don't know what sort of majorities most MPs have with military bases in their constituencies, but I'm guessing places like Marham which have in excess of 5% of the RAF would make a dent in their majorities and send a message if it didn't actually get their opponents elected.
Given that the electoral map is already skewed in Labour's favour, the prospect of losing some of their traditional seats might just be enough to make them realise what they are setting in train. After all, they clearly don't give a damn about us, but the prospect of losing their own livelihoods might just make them think again.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
This is kind of unfolding as you would expect. The inept government can no longer afford to pay public sector pensions. There are a number of stories drip fed to the media over a number of months bringing the subject into public view. This gets the majority on side, everything is out in the open and before you know it, your pension looks nothing like you were expecting. It’s sad, but it’s happening and it’s inevitable.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could really push some people "over the edge". I do hope that the Government (whichever snivelling form they take) don't expect any form of Operational Capability if serving members of the Armed Forces have their pensions 
cked with. They thought they had problems with retention at the moment, stand by......!
100% of my colleagues only remain serving for the pension. Of course this was not the case in the first 6 years or so, motives were different then, adventure, serving your country etc etc. If they want all the experienced bods, who pretty much form the glue in an otherwise fragile Armed Services, to leave, then they are potentially going the right away about it.
And relax......
cked with. They thought they had problems with retention at the moment, stand by......!100% of my colleagues only remain serving for the pension. Of course this was not the case in the first 6 years or so, motives were different then, adventure, serving your country etc etc. If they want all the experienced bods, who pretty much form the glue in an otherwise fragile Armed Services, to leave, then they are potentially going the right away about it.
And relax......
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roony,
This gets the majority on side, everything is out in the open and before you know it, your pension looks nothing like you were expecting. It’s sad, but it’s happening and it’s inevitable.
As I have said before on this forum on this subject - no, it is not inevitable.
I have spent many years in service of H M Queen and the country and not be lured into civvie street during the 'dizzy' years of the 90s and new millenium because I knew that I was destined for a decent pension.
Those that say that the Public Sector get paid just as well as the Private Sector - they a right, now there is a balance, but please do not forget the many many years where the Private Sector had bonus after bonus (and we are not talking a couple of hundred quid Christmas bonus).
So I have planned my career, my future, my retirement based upon the 'contract' that I signed with H M Queen and the Country nearly 20 years ago. Just because I have kept 'soldiering on' quietly doing my job and prepared to sacrifice my life for my country as I knew that my pension would look after my family - then please someone tell me why it is inevitable that just because H M Govt and their associated PFI (e.g. Xafinity) have incorrectly managed the nations economy and pension funds, then why should I (and potentially my family) suffer.
This is so wrong - and I really do wonder does this whole H M Govt 'world saving' bail out have any coherence and are the Polticians fully aware of what their knee jerk reactions are doing to those Public Servants that have loyally done exactly that - 'serve the public' and not taken the quick buck with avarice option.
How on earth does H M Govt really believe that it is going to recruit and retain high quality Public Servants when the Private Sector picks up and starts to offer them more lucrative terms and conditions. Lerts get this straight, I have many a Private Sector financier that doesn't give two hoots about Pension Schemes going wrong as his bonuses over a 8 year period have all been invested in country estates and overseas property that he is more than willing to sit on and 'ride out the storm'.
I didn't get such bonuses and therefore call me old fashioned, I rely on the covenant that I had with HM Queen and the country that I would be paid a fair pension for remaining loyal to the Crown.
Now what I would really like to see is H M Govt do a complete review of all Public Servants - no fannying around or hiding behind a quango/pseudo Politcial Correctness. If HM Govt really needs to save money and it is putting Crown Servants on review, then lets do it.
Do we really need all of the Council and H M Govt positions that due to their PC and ED lable have bottomless funds as H M Govt can show that it is diverse. Lets make it clear, if these departments and positions actually add something to society, then I am all for it. But just to make a HM Govt more politically correct for a small minority then this has to stop.
Again, with immigration - how much, who adds value, who really needs asylum - and I 100% support genuine requirements or those that add to a community. But how much has and is being spent/wasted?
Same goes for those that are sponging off the state - I am still shocked at the recent Prezza documentary where a 19 year old single mother genuinely believed that she was middle class because she did not have to work.
My point is that before H M Govt goes for the quick win of reviewing my pension it needs to man up and have some moral courage to sort out the areas in its back yard that are (and having been) losing/wasting far more money than the Public Sector pensions ever will.
This gets the majority on side, everything is out in the open and before you know it, your pension looks nothing like you were expecting. It’s sad, but it’s happening and it’s inevitable.
As I have said before on this forum on this subject - no, it is not inevitable.
I have spent many years in service of H M Queen and the country and not be lured into civvie street during the 'dizzy' years of the 90s and new millenium because I knew that I was destined for a decent pension.
Those that say that the Public Sector get paid just as well as the Private Sector - they a right, now there is a balance, but please do not forget the many many years where the Private Sector had bonus after bonus (and we are not talking a couple of hundred quid Christmas bonus).
So I have planned my career, my future, my retirement based upon the 'contract' that I signed with H M Queen and the Country nearly 20 years ago. Just because I have kept 'soldiering on' quietly doing my job and prepared to sacrifice my life for my country as I knew that my pension would look after my family - then please someone tell me why it is inevitable that just because H M Govt and their associated PFI (e.g. Xafinity) have incorrectly managed the nations economy and pension funds, then why should I (and potentially my family) suffer.
This is so wrong - and I really do wonder does this whole H M Govt 'world saving' bail out have any coherence and are the Polticians fully aware of what their knee jerk reactions are doing to those Public Servants that have loyally done exactly that - 'serve the public' and not taken the quick buck with avarice option.
How on earth does H M Govt really believe that it is going to recruit and retain high quality Public Servants when the Private Sector picks up and starts to offer them more lucrative terms and conditions. Lerts get this straight, I have many a Private Sector financier that doesn't give two hoots about Pension Schemes going wrong as his bonuses over a 8 year period have all been invested in country estates and overseas property that he is more than willing to sit on and 'ride out the storm'.
I didn't get such bonuses and therefore call me old fashioned, I rely on the covenant that I had with HM Queen and the country that I would be paid a fair pension for remaining loyal to the Crown.
Now what I would really like to see is H M Govt do a complete review of all Public Servants - no fannying around or hiding behind a quango/pseudo Politcial Correctness. If HM Govt really needs to save money and it is putting Crown Servants on review, then lets do it.
Do we really need all of the Council and H M Govt positions that due to their PC and ED lable have bottomless funds as H M Govt can show that it is diverse. Lets make it clear, if these departments and positions actually add something to society, then I am all for it. But just to make a HM Govt more politically correct for a small minority then this has to stop.
Again, with immigration - how much, who adds value, who really needs asylum - and I 100% support genuine requirements or those that add to a community. But how much has and is being spent/wasted?
Same goes for those that are sponging off the state - I am still shocked at the recent Prezza documentary where a 19 year old single mother genuinely believed that she was middle class because she did not have to work.
My point is that before H M Govt goes for the quick win of reviewing my pension it needs to man up and have some moral courage to sort out the areas in its back yard that are (and having been) losing/wasting far more money than the Public Sector pensions ever will.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: planet earth
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest:
The Forces Pension Society - Contact details
Possibly the best 23 quid you will ever spend....
The Forces Pension Society - Contact details
Possibly the best 23 quid you will ever spend....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One year on since the last post to this thread, with the economy in a mess and an election looming, there is still much talk of reviews to public sector pensions.
I was therefore interested to read the following paragraph on a pensions website (my bold):
Does anyone know if that makes existing Forces pensions resistant to government "adjustment"?
I was therefore interested to read the following paragraph on a pensions website (my bold):
The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is a final salary, contracted out, unfunded occupational pension scheme and its rules are set out in prerogative instruments. These documents are not subject to approval, annulment or amendment by parliament, they derive their authority directly from the Queen.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBTL,
A lot of people elected to stay on AFPS 75 - so it's alive and well! Although AFPS 75 was brought into force by a Royal warrent, I notice that AFPS 05 was introduced by the S of S through the Armed Forces (Pension and Compensation) Act 2004 - so I wonder if the latter is as safe?
A lot of people elected to stay on AFPS 75 - so it's alive and well! Although AFPS 75 was brought into force by a Royal warrent, I notice that AFPS 05 was introduced by the S of S through the Armed Forces (Pension and Compensation) Act 2004 - so I wonder if the latter is as safe?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think that HM will step in the way to protect Forces pensions in opposition to government decisions, think again.
EVERY law is signed by the queen, including changes to the UK constitution. If HM signed off the Lisbon treaty ammendments to the UK constitution, I cant imagine her raising her head above the parapet regarding pensions.
Whether we like it or not, Whitehall has to find 25% cuts in expenditure, current and future. One of the easiest ways of doing this is by ammending public sector pensions, which are currently unfunded and not in the future government debt statistics.
Have a look to see what they have done to redundancy terms if you think pensions are gold plated... the retrospection law will last as long as our government carries on without IMF bailout. Once we get past that little number again, all bets are off.
EVERY law is signed by the queen, including changes to the UK constitution. If HM signed off the Lisbon treaty ammendments to the UK constitution, I cant imagine her raising her head above the parapet regarding pensions.
Whether we like it or not, Whitehall has to find 25% cuts in expenditure, current and future. One of the easiest ways of doing this is by ammending public sector pensions, which are currently unfunded and not in the future government debt statistics.
Have a look to see what they have done to redundancy terms if you think pensions are gold plated... the retrospection law will last as long as our government carries on without IMF bailout. Once we get past that little number again, all bets are off.